Thread: Martin inviting Beeswax Altar 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=027137
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Hi Bee Ay
This is probably long overdue. I invite you to a full, open laying down of rhetorical arms here. Mine. Please do as you will.
I am guilty of being argumentative, no matter how one dresses it up as sophomoric rhetoric, with you on the Satanic rites (sic) and other threads on the social gospel and evangelism.
I'm very guilty of being a leopard whose spots don't change as I wildly oscillate from right to left.
So, for a start, can I ask what it was about my attitude to Associate Justice Clarence Thomas that transgressed Matthew 7? I like him. Don't agree with him, but I like him. Damn likable brilliant guy, much like yourself I'm sure. Sexual power abuse excluded. And yeah, had beams in my eye.
There's a Styx question on my condescending ad hominem of you as 'sweet' in invoking it.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
You don't know Clarence Thomas yet dismissed him as patriarchal. Why? Because of Anita Hill? Maybe, she was lying. The same people who trashed Clarence Thomas had no problem coming to the defense of Bill Clinton.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Because he's patriarchal? She didn't lie. He oozes patriarchy, he is the epitome of patriarchy, the best that Christendom has. He was married at the time. A lapsed Catholic. Altogether a very real, wise, broken, representative, weak, foolish, highly qualified man. A bit like Richard Fish in Ally McBeal. And yeah, Bill Clinton. I loved Bill. He caused the Rwandan genocide.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Yes, she lied.
Bill Clinton didn't cause the Rwandan Genocide.
Everybody knows Tony Benn caused the Rwandan Genocide.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Beeswax Altar: quote:
Yes, she lied.
You know this how?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Same way Martin knows Clarence Thomas lied and Hill is telling the truth.
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on
:
[Aside]I keep thinking Beeswax Altar is Bob Two-Owls.[/Aside]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Dang it
I changed my avatar because Yonoton used my last avatar. Forgo Bob Two Owls uses this one. Off to search for another avatar.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
How about this one?
Anybody using this one?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Yep, saw it this week, though I can't remember who was wearing it just now.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
How about this one?
Anybody using this one?
Congratulations. You may well have unearthed an avatar sufficiently tasteless that no sane poster has thought to use it before.
EDIT: And just like that, someone comes and takes the rug out from me right while I'm typing that statement.
[ 12. May 2014, 03:17: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
I so TOTALLY hope that Shipmate shows up any minute now. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I'm fairly sure it's a snippet from a Gauguin painting. I never liked Gauguin much. Much more of a Cezanne fan myself. Which will please Sioni no end.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Yep, saw it this week, though I can't remember who was wearing it just now.
Damn
I'll have another go.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
How about this?
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
Beeswax Altar, I love you too much to let you wobble around like this.
Your own 64x64-bit icon isn't that hard to rustle up.
You should adorn your rhetoric with something better than what you can scrounge up by rummaging around in Simon's odd-lots and seconds bin.
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Beeswax Altar: quote:
Yes, she lied.
You know this how?
My pastor-at-the-time's dad testified in the hearings (p553-573ish of the transcripts "Mr. Kothe") but that pipeline to the story did not really furnish us any additional details: his dad worked closely with and admired both of them and could not conceive of the harassment having happened. But blatant sexual harassment is often hidden, buried and secret. I tend to believe that it probably did happen in this case, if only because I have seen it happen it other situations by people who were otherwise good, functional and otherwise ethical in the rest of their lives.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
That's how.
Clinton's - Christendom's - failure in Somalia led directly to the Rwandan - Christendom - genocide.
And how false is my Jesus?
Is it that the Father and the Holy Spirit are NOT in His express image? And that He WAS the OT God the Killer and will be at His return?
Or is it even worse than that? In Him I see righteousness equate to social justice?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by MartinPC Not & Ship's Biohazard:
That's how.
Oh OK
Well, I believe Thomas because I know a guy who who has seen others falsely accused of sexual harassment.
So...we are right back to me believing what I believe for the same reason you believe what you believe. You pass judgment on Clarence Thomas based on speculation. I pass judgment on Anita Hill based on speculation. Neither one of us have any business passing judgment on people we don't know. The Jesus of the Gospels was opposed to such things. Martin's Jesus is OK with Martin passing judgment on anybody that Martin doesn't like. I'd be concerned if I thought your Jesus existed anyplace outside your own head.
quote:
originally posted by Martin PC Not & Ship's Biohazard:
Clinton's - Christendom's - failure in Somalia led directly to the Rwandan - Christendom - genocide.
The UN is Christendom? Huh...I suspect all of non-Christian nations in the UN will be upset by that. Perhaps, they'll take solace in the fact that you sprinkle the word Christendom throughout your posts simply because you like the sound of it. Your definition of Christendom, to the extent you even have a consistent definition of Christendom, has little to do with the actual definition of the word.
Now, if you have an actual argument that Somalia directly caused the Rwandan genocide, I'll listen. As it stands now, I can just say no it didn't and be done with it. I'll bet that should you actually attempt a reasoned defense of that assertion it will support my contention that you are behaving as self-righteous hypocrite. I'm not holding my breath you'll attempt an actual defense of your assertion. Chances are I'll get more vague blather justified by more vague blather.
quote:
originally posted by Martin PC Not & Ship's Biohazard:
Is it that the Father and the Holy Spirit are NOT in His express image? And that He WAS the OT God the Killer and will be at His return?
Your Jesus is false because it ignores the parts of the gospel you don't like. A view of Jesus that ignores large portions of the gospels is a false Jesus. I'm only interested in a view of Jesus that takes all four gospels seriously.
quote:
originally posted by Martin PC Not & Ship's Biohazard:
Or is it even worse than that? In Him I see righteousness equate to social justice?
It's worse because you come off as a self righteous hypocrite concerned more with asking the government to force others to follow your Jesus while giving yourself a pass. Social or otherwise it's an easy gospel for you to follow. How convenient that your Jesus comes to challenge others while at the same time making you feel all so right on for not being like all those
sinners. You come across as much a self righteous hypocrite as any Pharisee the Jesus of the Gospels encountered.
And that's sad because I don't think you are. I think you are a man hurt by the Christianity of his past lashing out by adopting the exact opposite position. I sympathize with that. I've been in that position myself. Turning into a self-righteous hypocrite is not the answer. Staying a fundamentalist but adopting new fundamentals is not the answer.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Oh Lord have mercy that one's terrible Beeswax!
Take TSA's advice and get you an original. You suck at choosing the givens.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
You and TSA are more than welcome to suggest an avatar, Evensong.
[ 12. May 2014, 13:59: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
Clarence Thomas should be called to Hell for most of his SCOTUS votes.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Fine
Call Clarence Thomas to Hell for his SCOTUS votes. If I called every federal judge to Hell for decisions that I didn't like, Hell would have to be harrowed every couple of days. But knock yourself out.
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
Nah, as a Canadian, Clarence Thomas provides me with endless bouts of laughter.
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
How about this?
It rings a vague bell, but nothing definite.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Had your rabies shots BA? I LIKE Thomas. As I keep saying and you keep ignoring. Like much else.
Why are you lying about my Jesus? Me too of course, but that's nothing. But why my Jesus?
How can you do that?
You're a liar Beeswax Altar.
A blaspheming liar. That makes me triply guilty of that by definition.
But you are a liar.
Fancy that. I've let myself get angry about that.
Well I better say that I forgive you BA.
But the feelings won't follow for a while.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
No, you are a liar.
See we can do this indefinitely.
No point to it really.
But whatever floats your boat.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
How about this?
It rings a vague bell, but nothing definite.
Bastard ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on
:
Sorry, couldn't resist! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Be at peace, your 'Sherlock' avatar is yours again.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Thank you very much.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
If Hell were a sex toy shop, this thread would be the blow-up sheep.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Holy moley, Kelly, but you just made me inhale my bedtime cocoa.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
If Hell were a sex toy shop, this thread would be the blow-up sheep.
That was baaaaaad
(I'll get my coat)
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
If Hell were a sex toy shop, this thread would be the blow-up sheep.
Something that only gets purchased for bachelor parties and 18th birthdays, an embarrassment to even the most jaded, and explodes spectacularly during its first shame-faced and desperate solitary use?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Happens to the best of us, my friend.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
... and explodes spectacularly during its first shame-faced and desperate solitary use?
Wait a doggone minute!
quote:
G: Double Bonded Seams
The Love Ewe is designed to withstand the rigors of a shepherd’s passions, with double welded seams to allow for the exhausted collapse of a post-coital 200 pound man.
Source: it would be really hilarious if this was NSFW, but I supposed it could be.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I suspect Ariston may be using methane to inflate his model. That's got to end in tears.
Best stick with the example of this thread and stick to helium. quote:
Industrial grade inflation port makes the Love Ewe last longer. The Love Ewe’s nozzle is conveniently located on her voluptuous bottom.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Inflatabeastiality. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
This thread has sunk to a new low, even for Hell.
Well, at least we know what floats Ariston's boat.
Not that we are judging, mind....Oh Hell, yes we are. Jesus Christ on a unicycle, that is just weird. Hey quetz, got a patient for you.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Someone should invite Desert Daughter to join the fun.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Jesus Christ on a unicycle, that is just weird.
So is Jesus Christ on a unicycle.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
If Hell were a sex toy shop, this thread would be the blow-up sheep.
Why do I suddenly miss Spiffy?
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
Because you really need something else to haunt your dreams forever, this is what I get for clicking the "games" link in that site Kells linked to.
You're Welcome.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Inflatabeastiality. This thread has sunk to a new low, even for Hell.
Well, at least we know what floats Ariston's boat.
Not that we are judging, mind....Oh Hell, yes we are. Jesus Christ on a unicycle, that is just weird. Hey quetz, got a patient for you.
No thank you; we've had a surfeit of sheep, something to do with all the Welsh people in the area. Now goats and chihuahuas - bring 'em on.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
Chances are the reason you are buck naked with an inflatable sheep is that you can’t handle sex with other humans or real sheep for that matter. The last thing you need at this point is a cavernous ovine vulva silently belittling your manhood.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Now goats and chihuahuas - bring 'em on.
Lot of chigoahuas in your area? (Chigoahua = small, aggressive, rank-smelling dog, butts you in the ankles a lot).
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
No, chigoahuas are a new delicacy to me. As are also cavernous ovine vulvas, but I shall see if Heston Blumenthal has any interesting suggestions for them.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Because you really need something else to haunt your dreams forever, this is what I get for clicking the "games" link in that site Kells linked to.
You're Welcome.
I swear one of them mooed.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Thank you very much.
Phew. All is now right with the world.
Yet avatar guessing could have been fun.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
I do like that picture.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
What parts of the good news do I ignore then Father? You ignore all of it as far as I can see. Treating Jesus as God's hippy holiday.
And how, Father, am I a self-righteous hypocrite Father? What do I pass on? I have no wealth to redistribute apart from the 9 year old Passat, the laptop, six grand in the bank. And my left hand can know no more Father.
What impresses me Father, is that your flock needs no tending Father.
Clinton, a Christian, crusaded in Muslim Somalia, recoiled and signalled to Rwandan Christians, including priests like yourself Father, that they could murder another million Christians in a hundred days if they like.
So they did.
Father.
I should regret this Father. But the trouble is, Father, I don't. That concerns me.
How to love my enemy.
Don't send this for a start, I feel a still small voice saying.
It upsets me Father. But it doesn't bother you at all does it? That's what it looks like.
Yeahhhh. Love has to be one way doesn't it.
What an interesting experience.
God bless you Father.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Martin:
What parts of the good news do I ignore then Father? You ignore all of it as far as I can see. Treating Jesus as God's hippy holiday.
You pretend the Father Jesus prays to is different from the God of Israel. You disregard everything Jesus said about judgment pretending it's some sort of walk in the park. Is a walk in the park weeping and gnashing of teeth? As for the social gospel, thinking that the Incarnation can only be good news for the poor if Lefties vote in enough politicians who share their political beliefs to take more money from the rich and redistribute it through social programs insults both the gospel and the poor.
quote:
originally posted by Martin:
And how, Father, am I a self-righteous hypocrite Father? What do I pass on? I have no wealth to redistribute apart from the 9 year old Passat, the laptop, six grand in the bank. And my left hand can know no more Father.
After you repeatedly attacked persecuted Christians for not being Christian enough, I don't think any more evidence of your self righteousness is needed. As to you being a hypocrite, if you truly want to follow what the NT actually described as communalism, you would live in a Christian community that shared all of it's resources in common. Instead, the NT notion somehow gets morphed into the government forcing those who you think have too much to give those you don't think have enough. As you said, your contribution is voting. How convenient! You also said that forming such a community would be to hard for you. Oh well so the fuck what! You want to come in her spouting all this radical bullshit and judging people who suffer for their faith in ways you never will expect to get challenged on it. You want others to die for your faith and your Jesus. You can't be bothered to do the work to establish an Acts 2 community? Yeah, you are a self righteous hypocrite.
quote:
originally posted by Martin:
Clinton, a Christian, crusaded in Muslim Somalia, recoiled and signalled to Rwandan Christians, including priests like yourself Father, that they could murder another million Christians in a hundred days if they like.
What a bunch of nonsense! The United States participated in an UN mission to Somalia. Muslims participated in this "crusade." You and I both know you wouldn't go up to a Pakistani soldier who was a part of the UN mission in Somalia and accuse him of crusading. Hell no! That's just all just a bunch of bullshit you spout on the internet to impress everybody with how sold out you are to your new found right on ideology.
Bill Clinton signaled to the Rwandans they could kill millions of people by withdrawing from Somalia? That's just asinine. But, Martin, it gets worse for you, mate. Remember I predicted that if you tried to defend your claim it would prove you to be a hypocrite. It did.
How did Bill Clinton's withdrawal from Somalia signal the Rwandans? It told them that the United States had no taste for costly military interventions in Africa, right? So, according to your line of reasoning, the only thing preventing the Rwandan genocide was the threat of US force. The only way Bill Clinton could have prevented the Rwandan Genocide would have been to send in large numbers of US soldiers to use violence.
But Martin!!!! What would Jesus do? What would your Pacifist Jesus do, Martin? Would he send in the US military to kill Hutus? Wouldn't he let the genocide happen because violence doesn't solve anything? Again, I don't know a damn thing about your Jesus. I do know that his apostle Martin would look back with 20 years of hindsight and blame Bill Clinton and the Americans for killing Hutus to save Tutsi. Why? Because you are a self righteous hypocrite.
quote:
originally posted by Martin:
It upsets me Father. But it doesn't bother you at all does it? That's what it looks like.
Depends on day Martin. Depends on the day.
And God bless you too.
[ 13. May 2014, 21:28: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
Posted by JFH (# 14794) on
:
Beeswax: ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Are you a bible literalist Beeswax?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
This isn't about literalism. Judgment is a part of scripture. To reject the idea of judgment is to not take the NT seriously. Hell might be literal. It may be a metaphor for something. Whatever it's a metaphor for isn't pleasant. If it were, Jesus would have described it as a walk in the park.
Martin is entitled to create a Jesus he likes by interpreting the passages he likes as literal, explain away others, and pretend Jesus didn't accept the OT as authoritative. I don't care. Problem is Martin then acts like his Jesus is clearly the Jesus of the gospels. Then, he pops up on every thread asking what Jesus would do. What he means is, "what would Martin's Jesus do? I really don't care what Martin's Jesus would do. I have no problem telling him that every single time he randomly pops up on a thread and asks what Jesus would do like some faux cool evangelical youth pastor from circa 1998.
[ 14. May 2014, 01:36: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
My point is interpretation is part of scripture. Unless one is a mindless literalist, of course.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
My point is interpretation is part of scripture. Unless one is a mindless literalist, of course.
Even literalists have to read for comprehension, which is not the same as selecting the words that fit your point of view.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
My point is interpretation is part of scripture. Unless one is a mindless literalist, of course.
Mindless literalists interpret too sweetheart.
There is no such thing as literalism. It's as ridiculous a notion as objectivity in thought.
Those you might consider "literalists" just interpret certain bits of the bible in different ways than others with different tags might.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
My point is interpretation is part of scripture. Unless one is a mindless literalist, of course.
Mindless?
Any idiot can come up with their own interpretation of a text.
I've said Martin is entitled to his Jesus. I just have no way of knowing what Martin's Jesus would do nor do I care. That's all I say when Martin asks what his Jesus would do. Other times I respond that Jesus would the extreme opposite of what Martin's Jesus would do. If we can all construct our own Jesus, then that Jesus is every bit as authoritative as Martins. Martin takes offense at both of those approaches. So here we are.
Posted by Magic Wand (# 4227) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Martin is entitled to create a Jesus he likes by interpreting the passages he likes as literal, explain away others, and pretend Jesus didn't accept the OT as authoritative. I don't care. Problem is Martin then acts like his Jesus is clearly the Jesus of the gospels. Then, he pops up on every thread asking what Jesus would do. What he means is, "what would Martin's Jesus do? I really don't care what Martin's Jesus would do. I have no problem telling him that every single time he randomly pops up on a thread and asks what Jesus would do like some faux cool evangelical youth pastor from circa 1998.
This. A thousand times, this.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
My point is interpretation is part of scripture. Unless one is a mindless literalist, of course.
Even literalists have to read for comprehension, which is not the same as selecting the words that fit your point of view.
Alright, number one is there are a number of people in any given religion who most certainly do not read for comprehension. And those who most certainly take the belief that interpretation and context are unnecessary.
Certainly, they are selecting words to fit their view, but this is not what they say and think.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
There is no such thing as literalism.
There are people who describe themselves so. Ignorant of language and/or their own texts.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Any idiot can come up with their own interpretation of a text.
Heh. Kinda what I've been saying the whole time.
BTW, my comments have not been about Martin. They've been more about inter-sect squabble. Martin can just go, erm, defend himself.
[ 14. May 2014, 15:01: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
There is no such thing as literalism.
There are people who describe themselves so. Ignorant of language and/or their own texts.
Send em this. Usually works.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
...
quote:
You pretend the Father Jesus prays to is different from the God of Israel.
I pretend that Jesus didn't pray to Himself? Where? How? Not that He did of course.
quote:
You disregard everything Jesus said about judgment pretending it's some sort of walk in the park.
You disregard its bearabilty for Jew and Sodomite alike.
quote:
Is a walk in the park weeping and gnashing of teeth?
Are both figures of speech? I do both certainly. You?
quote:
As for the social gospel, thinking that the Incarnation can only be good news for the poor if Lefties vote in enough politicians who share their political beliefs to take more money from the rich and redistribute it through social programs insults both the gospel and the poor.
Absolutely, well said, I couldn't agree more, always have. Mere humanism, mere love in action, merely returning the poor's wealth to them, cannot be enough.
...
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
...
quote:
After you repeatedly attacked persecuted Christians for not being Christian enough, I don't think any more evidence of your self righteousness is needed.
Are you Christian enough?
...
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
...
quote:
As to you being a hypocrite, if you truly want to follow what the NT actually described as communalism, you would live in a Christian community that shared all of it's resources in common. Instead, the NT notion somehow gets morphed into the government forcing those who you think have too much to give those you don't think have enough. As you said, your contribution is voting. How convenient! You also said that forming such a community would be to hard for you. Oh well so the fuck what! You want to come in her spouting all this radical bullshit and judging people who suffer for their faith in ways you never will expect to get challenged on it. You want others to die for your faith and your Jesus. You can't be bothered to do the work to establish an Acts 2 community? Yeah, you are a self righteous hypocrite.
Sorry?
...
[ 15. May 2014, 20:39: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
It was 5 years. I don't get the connection with my self righteous hypocrisy. Whatever that is. I know I have it and am blind to it, but you haven't identified it. I don't follow your narrative of my rhetoric at all.
We need to start again old friend.
I'm not aware of Christians anywhere being persecuted for being kind, generous, patient, empowering, decent ... are you? Taken advantage of, yes. I'm aware of Christians being martyred for righteousness AKA social justice, Romero, Luwum, Popiełuszko. Christians in the Roman Empire stood out for their kindness. Burying the abandoned dead even. Not for their creeds. For their refusal to submit to Christendom's immediate and continuous predecessor in being complicit in the abuse of power. The same wolf since in Christendom's clothing.
...
Ah well.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Oh...I've identified it. You are just blind to it. I've brought you to the water. I can't make you drink.
Perhaps you will on the next shell thread you start. I'm not holding my breath. But we will see.
[ 15. May 2014, 21:49: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Perhaps you will on the next shell thread you start.
I'm liking the shell thread idea. 4 posts in a row Martin. Most shell games use just three. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Damn auto correct. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Well, David was right about Shimei.
You don't know in your wrongness how right you are.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Beeswax Altar. It IS about literalism. A literalism I fully embraced for 40 years. An ignorance, a gracelessness, a fearfulness, a weakness with which I oppressed my family and myself. My literalism. NOT yours. Yet they are subsets of greater literalism. You're in Kingston Upon Thames. I'm in Tower Hamlets. The literalism that one is blind to, that looks at the Iron Age language of Jesus' culture that He used against it and STILL says "Yeah! They'll get their's!". The literalism born of our frightened, frightening, fearful, fearsome monkey four billion years in the making. I completely relate to and embrace that literalism, as I embrace all the excremental I've ever been, thought, said, done. (In an hour or less I will curse the bastard I've been at some intrusive thought, but this is therapeutic at the moment.) And you to. And apologise. Again. Sincerely. Again. A sincerity that will be found to be vacuous as my killer super-monkey is alive and well. As it was in Jesus' day in everyone INCLUDING Him. But prince trumps toad-monkey.
You exposed the leopard spots under my faux pastor to me. I'm grateful.
So, I'm literal where it suits me? I'm 'literal' about Jesus - twice - promising the ... literal? ... denizens of ... literal? ... Sodom a bearable judgement? How ... literal of you Beeswax. If I may call you by your ... literal? ... first name. How literal of your interpretation of mine. And I explain away His so-called hard sayings? They are ALL figurative. I'm completely and UTTERLY consistent in my interpretation of them all. It's about what we bring to the party mate. And I'm done with bringing ... evil to it. Bringing four billion years of crawling through contingent mud to it. Aren't you? We cling to what clings to us though. It's VERY hard to let go of I know. Even Jesus couldn't. How could He? He was HUMAN. Of the culture. With its ancient library of myth. That is REALLY worth exploring. He OBVIOUSLY transcended it, but could only use the language of the culture to subvert it. We can't hear any other. It's taken 2000 years and 40 to subvert me. Didn't you notice the thread where I explored, against the tide of anachronistic liberalism, Jesus' utter submission to the authority of HIS narrative of PSA? If the Father legalistically required that ... then again that's something utterly beyond me.
This was a man who REMEMBERED Satan falling ... LIKE lightning. Did He remember drowning the world, nuking Sodom and Gomorrah? Smiting and plaguing? If He did, then that's ALL beyond me now. All His business as ineffable God. A God I don't know, don't understand, don't relate to, don't, can't fear at all. Just like I don't a God who literally fulfils Iron Age apocalyptic. A God who wades in blood. Who is the bloodiest of them all. Did He believe it? At some stage of His development at least. Of course. How could He not?
So when I ask WWJD, I ask what the healing, liberating, fellow victim, ignorant, weak, forgiving, perfect, sinless man by being fully imbued with the nature of God who returned to being omni-God would do. Will do. Whether He 'returns' in some literal way or we all stand before Him one on one. And beyond being friend, king, counsellor, brother, father, son, mother, I can't imagine Him. Not as a pitiless 'justified' helpless killer. Not as a merely human character in the oldest most enduring story from our childhood. The myth of redemptive violence. How will my fellow broken monkeys at Triangle last night - one of whom I thought was going to smash my face in and 'made' me feel small - fare with the God of Gilgamesh-Noah, the God I LOVE yet in my monkey who came to Abraham under the Terebith Trees of Mamre, but the God who nauseates me at the Gainsaying of Core and the Heresy of Peor and in the mind of good, true, faithful, decent, innocent baby butchering Samuel. Does HE NOT embrace me in my shame filled brokenness? And my fellow addicts and murderers? Is He going to howl in derision is we howl in endless loss worse than all we have bitterly known in outer darkness? Sorry, I can't bring that to the party any more. My Jesus loves me mate. And you. He loves us. Inexorably. And no I can't imagine ANY justification for wrath, threats, coercion, torment, torture. Or even sarcasm. There isn't for me from me to you. The big drunken scary bastard who was going to deal with THIS four eyed cunt deserves what judgement? I want him to be my transcendent friend. Even though I did get three cop cars out for him. Jesus can and will do that. And no He WON'T beat or scare the living sin out of the guy to do it. Not in the party in the park I'm walking to. Not the Jesus I know from His life and therefore His words and therefore His Father and their Spirit.
YMMV
Friend.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Bugger. Terebinth.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
And let's say you're right Beeswax. 110%. Mercy triumphs over judgement.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Martin, you did 4 again. Shell game, what?
B.A., the alleged typo is divine intervention. obviously, you have the gift of prophecy.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
So which one is it under?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Martin:
Beeswax Altar. It IS about literalism.
No, it really isn't. I am a Christian because the followers of Jesus spread the message of Jesus throughout the world. I am a Christian because they maintained their beliefs and continued to spread that message despite persecution and even martyrdom. Those followers of Jesus were the early Church. Before scripture was written, the early Church was. The Church wrote the Gospels. The Church preserved and designated as authoritative four gospels. These four gospels as a whole represented the story of Jesus as they understood it. The story may not be historical but it is the foundational story told by the Church. I don't accept any version of Jesus that does not take every word of Jesus into account. I can't accept as authentic a version of Jesus that doesn't admit the possibility of eternal condemnation. I'm not saying eternal condemnation is a given. Nor am I saying it means eternal punishment. I'm saying that glossing over the judgment language is not an accurate account of the Jesus of the gospels. No literalism required.
quote:
originally posted by Martin:
looks at the Iron Age language
I find it hard to take you seriously as a fellow Christian when you use the same language as the New Atheists. We are more technologically advanced than Iron Age Society. Big freakin deal. Scientific advancements tell us nothing about God. As for evolution, when you are talking about 4 billion years, the 2,000 years between Jesus time and our own is like the blink of an eye.
quote:
originally posted by Martin:
So, I'm literal where it suits me? I'm 'literal' about Jesus - twice - promising the ... literal? ... denizens of ... literal?
That's prooftexting. I don't do prooftexts. The passage can mean any number of things. None of them is that judgment will be pleasant or not happen.
quote:
originally posted by Martin:
Even Jesus couldn't. How could He? He was HUMAN. Of the culture. With its ancient library of myth. That is REALLY worth exploring. He OBVIOUSLY transcended it, but could only use the language of the culture to subvert it. We can't hear any other. It's taken 2000 years and 40 to subvert me.
And now you are just giving your own view. You have created a Jesus and a God that you are comfortable worshipping. That's fine. I'm just not personally interested in what he would say or do. The Jesus that makes Martin comfortable is not the Jesus I find when I read the Gospels, the rest of the NT, or most of church tradition. I'm only interested in views of Jesus that are consistent with the above.
Period
Full Stop
End of
You aren't alone. I know an old priest who frequently thinks that every time he has a problem with Christian doctrine that we should just change it. I just roll my eyes and think, "Who do you think you are, old man? Get over yourself." But, saying such things isn't very collegial.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Beeswax Altar sez:
"Who do you think you are, old man? Get over yourself." But, saying such things isn't very collegial.
Now there you're wrong. You know what college faculties are like.
Everything else you said? Spot on.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
It's hard to take Christianity seriously when we refuse to recast a tribal God in the light of Jesus, in whom we have seen the Father, and insist - spot on - that He is a genocidal baby killer.
[ 21. May 2014, 07:06: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Having failed in your pathetic attempt to hijack the Microchip is the Mark of the Beast thread in Purg, you now decide to return to Hell. Fine. Perhaps, you will stay in Hell instead of trying to ride your hobby horse through every thread in Purgatory.
Now where were we...
Oh yes
I don't care what you can take seriously. Martin's inability to take a religion seriously says nothing about whether it's true or not. You've created your own Jesus based on the portions of the gospels you like. Thomas Jefferson kept more of the originals than The Gospel According to Martin. Well, I can't take your Jesus seriously either. I don't do appeals to emotion. Emotion isn't a leg of the stool.
The Israelites were God's chosen people. To the extent that makes the God of Israel a tribal God, then Jesus was the Incarnation of a tribal god. Asserting that Jesus didn't recognize the Jews as God's chosen people require disregarding the numerous passages where Jesus asserts just that. No doubt those passages didn't make it into the Gospel According to Martin.
Your rejection of "God the baby killer" does not square with your acceptance of evolution. The earth is 4 billion years old. The fossil record is filled with species that once existed but is now extinct. God allowed them to go extinct. Did God not care about any of those species? Why did they exist in the first place? Didn't God care?
Every child born this morning will die. Some will only live a few hours. Some will live to be a 100 years old. The earth is 4 billion years old. The universe is around three times as old as that. A few decades one way or the other mean very little when considering the universe is billions and billions of years old.
People even children dying so that God's will can be done is clearly a part of scripture. It is a part of the history of the church. I'm sorry it makes you uncomfortable. However, a version of the gospel that doesn't accept the reality that prolonging earthly life isn't God's primary concern is not anywhere close to being authentic.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
This thread might be more fun if I had the faintest idea what you two are on about.
Youse strike me as an old married couple as it is.
(p.s. I think you might be slipping theologically on that last point BA. I always thought eternal life on earth was indeed God's plan for humanity)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
This thread might be more fun if I had the faintest idea what you two are on about.
Feel free to leave.
...and please, tell my family I love them and I'll be out as soon as I can.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
This thread might be more fun if I had the faintest idea what you two are on about.
Youse strike me as an old married couple as it is.
(p.s. I think you might be slipping theologically on that last point BA. I always thought eternal life on earth was indeed God's plan for humanity)
It's simple enough really. Martin's God is nice, but BA thinks he doesn't exist. BA's God's a bit nastier, but has the advantange (according to BA anyway) of actually existing. It's rather a shame, actually, I was hoping Martin's God existed because he sounds nicer than BA's. I expect BA has a fairly low opinion of that. Try to keep up love.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
So God is nothing like Jesus?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Death seems to be the key here.
BA thinks natural death is the sign of a God who doesn't mind death under any circumstances - it's our eternal souls that matter.
Martin sees unkind, capricious, deliberate, murderous death as totally wrong - thus God is not going to be induging in it under any circumstances.
I go with Martin tbh.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Karl:
It's simple enough really. Martin's God is nice, but BA thinks he doesn't exist. BA's God's a bit nastier, but has the advantange (according to BA anyway) of actually existing. It's rather a shame, actually, I was hoping Martin's God existed because he sounds nicer than BA's. I expect BA has a fairly low opinion of that. Try to keep up love.
The God of scripture is definitely not nice. Like I've said, I'm only interested in views of Jesus that take all of scripture seriously. The God of orthodox Christianity may not exist but He is not a God of my own creation.
quote:
originally posted by Martin:
So God is nothing like Jesus?
And here w go round the circle again... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
No, Martin, God isn't like your Jesus.
quote:
originally posted by Boogie:
I go with Martin tbh.
I'm not surprised. You do theology in much the same way as Martin. It boils down to I believe this about God because this is the kind of god I want to exist. Fair enough. There really isn't much to discuss one way or the other. At least you don't try to annoyingly hijack threads.
At this point, I'm tired of repeating myself. If anybody posts something that requires I post something new, then I'll respond. Else, I'm done.
Orfeo can get back to his family.
[ 21. May 2014, 17:18: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
So how is my Jesus unlike Jesus' Jesus?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Beeswax Altar - there are many Gods in Scripture - as many as people who wrote down their ideas and stories about God.
We have no option but to choose the one we will worship.
Choosing Jesus and His Character as revealing the true Character of God seems like a good and fair option, as Martin says. But you don't seem to have an answer to this option, except to keep using the worn out phrase 'orthodox Christianity' as if that has some kind of intrinsic meaning.
Why not take Jesus' Character as the benchmark?
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
God was in Christ.
Not my words but Paul's.
Which is to say that God is Christ-like.
End of story.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Yeah but Jesus was God on Thorazine. He's stopped taking His meds!!! He's back to killing babies.
BA got that argument from me here first years ago, I was the first and only person ever to articulate it on SOF in my theodicy of God the Killer.
Thank God I encountered gracious, generous, inclusive, liberal, orthodoxy before I got to 60, otherwise the wind would have turned and I'd have been stuck justifying Samuel's genocidal God.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Beeswax Altar - there are many Gods in Scripture - as many as people who wrote down their ideas and stories about God.
We have no option but to choose the one we will worship.
Choosing Jesus and His Character as revealing the true Character of God seems like a good and fair option, as Martin says. But you don't seem to have an answer to this option, except to keep using the worn out phrase 'orthodox Christianity' as if that has some kind of intrinsic meaning.
Why not take Jesus' Character as the benchmark?
I'm only interested in discussing opinions based on scripture, tradition, and reason. If you can support your claim that there are many Gods in scripture from scripture, tradition, or reason then I'll listen. While you are entitled to your opinion, anything more than exchange of opinion requires us to agree on what counts as an authoritative source.
I've actually answered Martins question about a hundred times. But, you are new. We don't know anything about the character of Jesus outside what we read in the gospels and the rest of scripture. Marin's view of Jesus doesn't even take into account all of the gospels. He makes assertions that the Jesus of the gospel would clearly reject. Best I can tell he thinks he understands Jesus better than Jesus understood Jesus. I reject that. People are entitled to their own view of Jesus. Personally, I think their view comes more from watching the Life of Brian and looking at kitschy mid century pictures of Jesus than they do from actually engaging with scripture. I'm only interested in the ones rooted in scripture and tradition. All the other views could just as well be of...Brian.
And, yes, orthodox Christianity is rather old.
That's the point.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Like what?
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
[T]here are many Gods in Scripture - as many as people who wrote down their ideas and stories about God.
This a cop-out. They easy way out. A mixtum gatherum of what appeals to one this week, rather than taking scripture as a whole. Holy Scripture is divinely inspired, right? That means that all of scripture tells us about God. The hard part is figuring out how all the disparate images work together to tell us about the Unseen God. quote:
We have no option but to choose the one we will worship.
As I have said, one must work harder. quote:
Choosing Jesus and His Character as revealing the true Character of God seems like a good and fair option, as Martin says.
Leaving out the messy bits of the OT. Marcion, anyone? quote:
But you don't seem to have an answer to this option, except to keep using the worn out phrase 'orthodox Christianity' as if that has some kind of intrinsic meaning.
But, Orthodox Christianity does. We would all do better with a greater dose of the Church Fathers, and a much smaller—much, much, much smaller—dose of the Biohazard. quote:
Why not take Jesus' Character as the benchmark?
Splendid idea. But, I don't think he is the soft and cuddly Jesus that many folk sift out of the NT.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Holy Scripture is divinely inspired, right?
What do you mean by 'divinely inspired'? Sounds good, but what does it actually mean?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I don't think he is the soft and cuddly Jesus that many folk sift out of the NT.
No, not soft and cuddly - but full of love, joy, peace, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, forgiveness, gentleness and self-control.
These are HARD things to do. No soft and cuddly at all!
They took Him to the cross.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The Jesus of the temple equipped by a whip wasn't particularly loving or kind to the moneylenders, nor with the Gadarene swine, a story full of complications, or the rich young man. I'm not that convinced that these verses are particularly kind and loving either.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Ah, everyone's favourite image of macho, hard-man Jesus, just itching to get back to butchering babies.
And He whipped whom? He beat whom? And He used hyperbole to what end?
I'm awed by the courage of one man against the Mafia myself.
It's ALWAYS all about what WE bring to the orthodoxy. I love to see mine questioned above, when I'm as oecumenically, creedally, orthodox as any here or in Mexico or the CAR.
That was my first and enduring breakthrough realisation on SOF a decade ago. The disposition of the denizens.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Martin, you've only chosen one verse/set of verses out of four to challenge - there's another three to change around too.
And, fyi, when I was playing church properly I was very liberal. Amongst the many other reasons, I don't think I can square what I want to believe with the Bible and Gospel accounts and have dropped out. There's only so much arguing you can do from the Bible to refute fundamentalists without going, well, actually, the text does say that.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Actually, I'll add a rider to that. The only time I was sort of called to hell was when Ender's Shadow called all the liberals to hell and quoted me in his opening post. And I was trying so hard for orthodox at the time.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The Jesus of the temple equipped by a whip wasn't particularly loving or kind to the moneylenders, nor with the Gadarene swine, a story full of complications, or the rich young man. I'm not that convinced that these verses are particularly kind and loving either.
He was violent with words (and being Irish - prone to Hyperbole) but never physically.
You cannot reconcile genocide with the life of Christ.
You do have to choose.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I don't think he is the soft and cuddly Jesus that many folk sift out of the NT.
No, not soft and cuddly - but full of love, joy, peace, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, forgiveness, gentleness and self-control.
These are HARD things to do. No soft and cuddly at all!
They took Him to the cross.
You're a treasure Boogie. Way to bring up the fruits of the Spirit.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
No one is denying the Man of Consolation found in the Holy Scriptures. What is being resisted here is the tendency to make a reductionist, simplistic picture of Jesus that is not free to look with wrath on the folly and wickedness of humankind.
Of course, it's even worse to read Jesus saying "Woe to you, hypocrites!" and think "Yes, those hypocrites will really get what they have coming." One must never read the Bible as if it justifies oneself and condemns someone else. Only Jesus is, ultimately, justified. When he declares "Woe to you!" the most Christian response is "Have mercy on me, Lord!"
There, at that moment and at that moment alone, is where I find this merciful Jesus we are all supposed to see in the Sacred Scriptures. "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."
[ 22. May 2014, 12:20: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Y'see, I can't stop thinking about this:
http://cdn2.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1025851/bill4.gif
I'm not sure how much God is meant to resemble the great God Calvin.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The Jesus of the temple equipped by a whip wasn't particularly loving or kind to the moneylenders, nor with the Gadarene swine, a story full of complications, or the rich young man. I'm not that convinced that these verses are particularly kind and loving either.
He was violent with words (and being Irish - prone to Hyperbole) but never physically.
You cannot reconcile genocide with the life of Christ.
You do have to choose.
Depends on what you mean by reconciling genocide with the life of Christ. With Christ's life and teaching as an example, Christians cannot justify genocide. On the other hand, Jesus never claims the Father is any other but the God of Israel. Jesus never claims the destruction of the Amalekites or any of the other unsavory OT narratives were wrong. Jesus never says God will not judge those who continue in sin harshly. Rather, the Incarnation event is God's ultimate revelation of God's love and mercy but rejecting Jesus has consequences. In the OT, God offered opportunities for repentance before judgment. The First Advent was about offering forgiveness, reconciliation, and relationship. The Second Advent will be about judgment. Judgment will not be pleasant. So, the actual Jesus of the Gospels when taken in context isn't the least bit incompatible with the God of the OT. Only by ignoring what the Gospels actually say as well as the rest of the NT can one say otherwise.
Again, this doesn't have to mean eternal conscious torment for those who reject Christ. As I've said before, a much better case can be made for annihilationism. However, annihilationism doesn't leave open the possibility that all will eventually be saved. Perhaps, hell and purgatory are the same place and all will eventually be saved. It is a possibility. Still, this is not clear from scripture. As Christians, we do others a disservice by pretending otherwise. Well, we do if w believe Christianity is anything other than a loose collection of moral suggestions only meant to truly challenge those with whom we disagree politically while offering the right on among us comfort in Christianity by proxy.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
You could very well be right BA. The problem is that the only possible reason for continuing to be a Christian, if you are, is terror of what'll happen otherwise. I can only fear your God. I can't love him. I can't even call him good. Yes, my conscience is unreliable and fallible, but so are my eyes, and I can't convince my self genocide is good any more than I could that grass is blue, were I to find a verse in Numbers that insisted it was.
That may be all I can do. Live in terror of God. If he's the real deal, I just have to live with that.
But it does mean I was sold a pup.
[ 22. May 2014, 13:01: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
BA - you still have not answered the point that Christlike love, joy, peace, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, forgiveness, gentleness and self-control is TOUGH - not cuddly, comfortable or fluffy in any way.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Well, I suppose that's a start. How you progress in relationship with God depends largely on you. If you aren't willing to stop judging God based on your culture's understanding of good and instead judge your culture based on God's understanding of good, then you will remain stuck in this sort of spiritual limbo. The only other way out is to reject God as Christianity presents God and embrace either atheism, some other religion, or a cafeteria style freelance theism.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
BA - you still have not answered the point that Christlike love, joy, peace, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, forgiveness, gentleness and self-control is TOUGH - not cuddly, comfortable or fluffy in any way.
the last post was directed at Karl
I did answer the question in the post before last. Do you seriously want to discuss the fruit of the Spirit in the context of Paul's overall theology or just pick and choose? I'm only willing to do the former. I suspect you are willing to reject everything Paul says you find objectionable. Am I right?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
No - I just want to see if you agree that these things are tough, not fluffy or comfortable.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Hard?
Only the indwelling of the Holy Spirit makes a spirit filled life possible.
Do you even want to talk about what scripture says about the Holy Spirit?
I suppose you want your own personal Holy Spirit as well...
Edited to add...
All of the fruit of the spirit can be interpreted in a way that is comforting. What are you doing? Well, unless you don't share my political or religious views, that's the fruit of the spirit right there.
[ 22. May 2014, 13:56: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Well, I suppose that's a start. How you progress in relationship with God depends largely on you. If you aren't willing to stop judging God based on your culture's understanding of good and instead judge your culture based on God's understanding of good, then you will remain stuck in this sort of spiritual limbo. The only other way out is to reject God as Christianity presents God and embrace either atheism, some other religion, or a cafeteria style freelance theism.
You seem to be suggesting that genocide isn't inherently bad, it's just my culture that says it is, and indeed that God doesn't agree. Therefore it would follow that I shouldn't, for example, impose my modern western cultural values on other people in the world who have no problem with mass killing - their sense of right and wrong appears closer to God's than mine.
It's not a case of being unwilling to accept genocide as good. It's incapability. No way I can do that, any more than I could stop judging colours according to my eyes and insist that grass is blue.
[ 22. May 2014, 13:57: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
TSA - Marcion was wrong for the right reason.
And Boogie engages. There is no cop-out whatsoever. Liberalism fully engages with 'scripture as a whole'.
"Holy Scripture is divinely inspired, right?"
Correct.
"That means that all of scripture tells us about God."
Incorrect.
"The hard part is figuring out how all the disparate images work together to tell us about the Unseen God."
No it's easy once that error is realised.
All of scripture tells us what we told about God in the Bronze and Iron Ages.
That He kills babies. That He drowned the world, tens of millions of people. That He nuked Sodom and Gomorrah. That He killed the firstborn of Egypt, gainsaid Cor ... notice a pattern? Admittedly He commanded Abijah in the killing of half a million Israelite men in 910+ BCE 2 Chr.13:15-17 and twice that of Ethiopians by Asa in 2 Chr.14:9-14 40 years later, of 2,476,633 numbered killings attributed to Him in the Bible. By the time we get to Acts all WE say He does is assassinate a Herod with parasites and Ananias and Sapphira with apoplexy. And He did require His Son to suffer for our sins. As His human Son – who remembered Satan - undoubtedly understood.
And please do overdose and sanitize the Biohazard with the Church Fathers – who, still in the Iron Age, told about what we told about God. Try at least. To tell what they told about what we told.
Ck… Aye, Jesus was as nasty to cows and tables and sheep and money and chickens as a man armed with a piece of string can be. And He told us to love love more than we love our kin. True. And He gave a millionaire the greatest opportunity for infinitely greater riches. True. He’s really got it in for dumb animals admittedly. He allowed daemons to possess pigs. As for that fig tree I notice you FAILED to mention! The Man’s a walking ecological disaster! He must have taken a vow or something not to kill babies or anyone while incarnate and the frustration will out I suppose.
Flesh tearingly yours, Martin
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Well, I suppose that's a start. How you progress in relationship with God depends largely on you. If you aren't willing to stop judging God based on your culture's understanding of good and instead judge your culture based on God's understanding of good, then you will remain stuck in this sort of spiritual limbo. The only other way out is to reject God as Christianity presents God and embrace either atheism, some other religion, or a cafeteria style freelance theism.
You seem to be suggesting that genocide isn't inherently bad, it's just my culture that says it is, and indeed that God doesn't agree. Therefore it would follow that I shouldn't, for example, impose my modern western cultural values on other people in the world who have no problem with mass killing - their sense of right and wrong appears closer to God's than mine.
It's not a case of being unwilling to accept genocide as good. It's incapability. No way I can do that, any more than I could stop judging colours according to my eyes and insist that grass is blue.
Secular Western ethics is a bland of hedonism and Christian morality minus the God that provides the rational underpinnings. Only recently have ethicists began to unconvincingly try to establish an objective basis for Western ethics apart from belief in God. The mere fact it's done after the fact contributes to its being unconvincing.
In other words, Westerners have no real basis to call genocide immoral other than Westerners don't you should commit genocide. The only thing Western nations can do is use their military and economic might to prevent genocide. As Christians, we can make a compelling case against genocide to other Christians who would use the OT to justify genocide.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
You don't need to label genocide as 'immoral' to ban it. It got banned once people were more readily able to see its effects - once the world shrunk a bit and photography and film, among other techniques, made the reality of what genocide MEANT in practice more tangible. It can be banned as matter of practicality, not just because of some abstract notion.
And anyway, genocide is in essence a massive number of counts of murder. If senseless killing of one person is immoral, it isn't very hard to reason that doing the same thing thousand of times over is also immoral.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
But why should we prevent genocide? If it's not inherently wrong according to the Bible, because God not only does it himself but demands others do it, and there's no other objective underpinning for opposing genocide, why should we attempt to prevent it?
(x-posted with Orfeo)
[ 22. May 2014, 14:25: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I suppose you want your own personal Holy Spirit as well...
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I have no idea what you are talking about there.
I am trying to say that choosing a Christlike path and trying to follow Jesus is not the easy option. That forgiveness and peacemaking are not the fluffy bunny option. That the God of love and kindness is not a 'made up' God - that Jesus' Character and ways show us God and show us God's Character.
I am saying that trying to follow Jesus will not give us a comfortable or 'nice' life, because it's the tougher option.
I think those who want to see God as a God of justice, wrath and punishment simply want to see those who they deem to be 'sinners' punished. The fires of Hell comfort these people as for them (one day) their enemies will get their 'just' deserts.
That's not Jesus' way - he asks the opposite of us, hard and almost impossible it often is imo.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I should add to my previous comment that murder is UNLAWFUL killing. Lawful killing is just killing.
Which becomes rather important when some people try to translate one of God's commandments as 'thou shalt not kill' and others translate it as 'thou shalt not murder'.
I point this out because it's also rather significant when people start saying that God either commits genocide or authorises it. Such statements more or less assume that God lacks authority to kill. This is not self-evident and poses some tricky problems given that we all die, and it is arguable that God has a hand in all deaths.
[ 22. May 2014, 14:39: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
Martin gets it correct when he argues that the Bible reflects bronze age and irion age morality.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Secular Western ethics is a bland of hedonism and Christian morality minus the God that provides the rational underpinnings. Only recently have ethicists began to unconvincingly try to establish an objective basis for Western ethics apart from belief in God. The mere fact it's done after the fact contributes to its being unconvincing.
In other words, Westerners have no real basis to call genocide immoral other than Westerners don't you should commit genocide. The only thing Western nations can do is use their military and economic might to prevent genocide. As Christians, we can make a compelling case against genocide to other Christians who would use the OT to justify genocide.
You do not get to call the Golden Rule exclusively Christian. It crops up almost everywhere and is because of that secular. And genocide is a straight up violation of the Golden Rule. So your assertions fail on just about every count.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Beautiful. There's no reason to love apart from God the Killer. There's no reason to be a decent human being for no reason.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Nice Freudian slip BA.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Secular Western ethics is a bland of hedonism and Christian morality minus the God that provides the rational underpinnings. Only recently have ethicists began to unconvincingly try to establish an objective basis for Western ethics apart from belief in God. The mere fact it's done after the fact contributes to its being unconvincing.
You're kidding, right? Right? I mean, I'm assuming you've read Plato and Aristotle, whose "gods," such as they are, are completely removed from human affairs and have no bearing on morality; if anything, adherence to the standards of the polis is the source of the good in classical Greek morality, certainly in Presocratic, everyday classical Greek morality. There's also the Epicureans, for whom not fearing the gods is part of basic morality, and the Stoics, for whom belief in a god or gods doesn't exactly seem all that important.
So, apart from a sort of divine command ethics (which, as we've seen here, gets us into a Euthyphro problem—is something good because the gods want it, or do the gods want it because it's good), or considering the worship of God or the gods, either in itself or as part of civic morality (as in Hobbes), to be moral, I'm not seeing too much support for this claim.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I should add to my previous comment that murder is UNLAWFUL killing. Lawful killing is just killing.
It all sound awful to me. Like offal.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Justinian wrote:- quote:
You do not get to call the Golden Rule exclusively Christian. It crops up almost everywhere and is because of that secular. And genocide is a straight up violation of the Golden Rule. So your assertions fail on just about every count.
I'm not addressing this in terms of a response to BA. And I agree with you wholeheartedly that genocide is a straight violation of the Golden Rule.
But what do you mean that it is "secular"? If you mean that it is not allowable intellectual property of religious thought, your assertion is evident nonsense.
If you mean the broader definition of secular then it gets even worse. Any insight of the age is supercedable. Evil-minded people of every belief and of no belief have seen fit to ignore it. The insight of the age finishes tonight - the new age starts tomorrow.
This is not about belief, theistic or otherwise. Any systematic system of thought should be capable of generating and embracing the Golden Rule - theistic, non-theistic or atheistic. Ascribe it where ascription is due, and excoriate where appropriate. Ascribing it to an entity (secularity) characterised as a null set is both bonkers and spectacularly dangerous.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
BA is just me 10 years ago. 5. He must have been here when I was using all the arguments to justify God the Killer. Nobody else did, but I, me, me, me, had a following.
I used to argue for God the Pragmatist. That death was neither here nor there, that law was stronger than life and love stronger than death and it would be all right in the end and all that tosh. That God was justified in loving the hell out of us with redemptive violence as He'd be really nice about it all in the resurrection. I JUSTIFIED the genocide of the Amalekites.
As I had Apartheid and homophobia.
Even BA's hands aren't that bloody, filthy.
Even if it had happened by God's will, it's NOT for us to justify. I got to that a year or so ago. If God IS like that, it's nowt ter do wi' me. It can't be humanly justified.
Then The Light that shone on Brian McLaren and Rob Bell fell on me. That falls on John Shelby Spong whom I despised. On As with Anthony Wedgewood Benn. The light that falls on Jorge Mario Bergoglio. On Greg Boyd. On Steve Chalke.
The light of Christ in whom we see the Father.
Nobody took me to task for my main rhetorical critique of liberalism. They didn't have to. I said that I didn't understand the liberal God who created suffering mortals, who was therefore just as much a killer and worse than God the Killer, whom I could understand (being a righteous murderer at heart). As if He could have done any different.
Of course He couldn't. If He could, He would. That hypostasis hasn't changed. What I do with it has. I was attacking my straw man in liberalism. That liberals believe that God could have created better. Of course He couldn't. Of course they don't.
There is no comparison with the struggle to bootstrap from mud to The Light and that light slashing down as sabre.
Suffering is contingent in creation.
God joined us in that.
To accelerate our transcendence from it.
Everything else is us helplessly twisted, projected inside out.
Judgement day is here. Face it.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The Jesus of the temple equipped by a whip wasn't particularly loving or kind to the moneylenders, nor with the Gadarene swine, a story full of complications, or the rich young man. I'm not that convinced that these verses are particularly kind and loving either.
He was violent with words … but never physically.
You do so love prove by assertion.
You have been presented with two texts with which you have to deal: the whip of cords & the slaughter of the swine.
How do you deal? You don't.
You fail to address the texts and simplistically assert the thing you so dearly want to be true.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As Christians, we can make a compelling case against genocide to other Christians who would use the OT to justify genocide.
So how would that argument go, if you don't mind my asking? What if those other Christians just tut-tut at your refusal to grasp God's understanding of good?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Martin:
BA is just me 10 years ago. 5.
Actually, it's just the opposite. I was you 10 years ago.
Then, I said to myself. Self. You're just making this shit up as you go. Next step was Anglo-Catholicism.
I at least put more of an effort into justifying my shit than you do yours.
My response to the rest is found in the link below.
Carefully worded response to Martin
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As Christians, we can make a compelling case against genocide to other Christians who would use the OT to justify genocide.
So how would that argument go, if you don't mind my asking? What if those other Christians just tut-tut at your refusal to grasp God's understanding of good?
Prooftexters gonna prooftext.
Just goes to show the danger of individualistic interpretations of scripture divorced from context, tradition, and reason. I'm not a fundamentalist for much the same reason I'm not a liberal. They are just two sides to the same modernist coin.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
My response to the rest is found in the link below.
Carefully worded response to Martin
I put Solti's Mahler 2 on pause for THAT?
You Owe Me.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte: quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The Jesus of the temple equipped by a whip wasn't particularly loving or kind to the moneylenders, nor with the Gadarene swine, a story full of complications, or the rich young man. I'm not that convinced that these verses are particularly kind and loving either.
He was violent with words … but never physically.
You do so love prove by assertion.
You have been presented with two texts with which you have to deal: the whip of cords & the slaughter of the swine.
How do you deal? You don't.
You fail to address the texts and simplistically assert the thing you so dearly want to be true.
Actually, there are four stories there, one of which nobody has picked up on at all:
- Jesus in the temple with the moneylenders,
- Jesus with the Gadarene Swine
- Jesus and the rich young man
- Jesus telling his disciples that they have to reject their families to follow him (the final story behind a link).
I could have found more, because they exist, it's not an exclusive list of difficult teachings.
I wouldn't disagree that the fruits of the spirit are difficult teachings to follow, but they are from the Pauline letters, which are advising churches as they describe the Jesus of the Gospels. And if you want to include the Epistles, there are some very tough teachings* in there too for our modern sensibilities. We can say that the OT is Bronze and Iron Age, which it is, and we can discuss Paul's (and others) writings as being a product of their paternalistic times, but when we look at the texts, not what we assume we know of the Bible, the Jesus who is there is really not the Jesus of the hymns and children's Bibles.
* women being seen and not heard, women not in headship positions, women wearing head coverings in church
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I picked up on all of them Ck...
Which fails you. That response right there. It fails because no matter how rhetorically robust I am, that itself is failure.
It will fail because no case can be made that will change anyone's disposition. I can polish and refine my dull incoherent stream of rhetoric all I like up against the bitter gall one of BA and the like in our peeing contest, but all it will do is make it worse.
Because I have failed to love my enemy.
This.
SOF Purgatory and Hell are predominantly adversarial. Only in Hell can we be personal enough to be open and intimate and real and free.
So, I've got to find a way to make you and BA and TSA and JFH and Magic Wand and Zach82 I think feel good about yourselves. Period. With no expectation that you will change your ... grim theologies.
So again, I must apologize for failing to do so by engaging in adversarial, sarcastic rhetoric which reveals my grim lack of love.
What are we to do with these bodies of death? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I am sorry guys. I have let you down. Especially BA.
How do we start again?
In love?
Martin
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Heyyyyyy! BA. Thanks. I LOVE MacArthur Park. Well I used to. But Hendrix! THE album however is Division Bell.
[ 23. May 2014, 06:26: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I at least put more of an effort into justifying my shit ...
I agree with you there - you put a lot of effort into justifying your shit.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As Christians, we can make a compelling case against genocide to other Christians who would use the OT to justify genocide.
So how would that argument go, if you don't mind my asking? What if those other Christians just tut-tut at your refusal to grasp God's understanding of good?
Prooftexters gonna prooftext.
Just goes to show the danger of individualistic interpretations of scripture divorced from context, tradition, and reason. I'm not a fundamentalist for much the same reason I'm not a liberal. They are just two sides to the same modernist coin.
Who said anything about prooftexting? If you can use "you don't have God's understanding of good" against your critics, why can't they use it against you?
I take it this isn't meant to be your compelling argument, right? I'd still be interesting in hearing if it has more details than simply "With Christ's life and teaching as an example, Christians cannot justify genocide."
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
That's another pass'e quote of me!
We're pomo liberals 'ere.
Off to the park.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
“Don't mistake my kindness for weakness. I am kind to everyone, but when someone is unkind to me, weak is not what you are going to remember about me.”
― Al Capone
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Actually, there are four stories there
Right there were. I chose to ask about the two with actual physical violence in them.
Has the sun arrived in the antipodes, yet?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Sir Georg? I remember when he were with the Chicago Symphony. I might have had that Mahler.
[ 23. May 2014, 13:42: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
<cross posted. meant for TSA>
The two with actual physical violence did not hurt anyone.
I suppose you could sue Jesus for not caring enough for animals (the poor swine) but he cannot be accused of the same for people.
Don't tell me I don't deal. That's bullshit. I did deal, you just missed it.
And don't tell me I'm "simplistically assert the thing you so dearly want to be true". Are you suddenly a voice over for BA and Martin? I think you're confused.
I "simplistically" asserted you cannot reconcile tribal genocide with the ministry of Christ. You have to choose.
You can "simplistically" "hold them in tension" like alot of people try to do but that's a by word for sitting on the fence.
BA points out Jesus' God is the God of OT: no doubt. But he didn't approve of everything in his religion. Far from it.
[ 23. May 2014, 13:48: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
Ah, the Sun Sets over Australia. I'll be back in a day or two.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Evensong:
I "simplistically" asserted you cannot reconcile tribal genocide with the ministry of Christ. You have to choose.
No, you don't. Nothing in the ministry of Jesus implied he disagreed with Samuel. Jesus does change the teaching of Moses somewhat which is to be expected. Jesus is a new law giver. And that is also why Christians can accept that God may have ordered genocide in the OT but oppose genocide now. Jews have to deal with the Amalekites in their own way.
Also, Evensong, I'm disappointed in your lack of concern for swine. Why is it OK to kill swine but not humans? I'm serious. Remember, as far as I can tell, we all accept evolution and an earth that is billions of years old. What makes us in our current form so special?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Martin:
I am sorry guys. I have let you down. Especially BA.
Martin, I told you once I love you. I really do. There are some people on the Ship of Fools that I don't like because I don't think they argue in good faith. You aren't one of them.
Neither is Karl.
Boogie genuinely believes what she believes. I disagree with most of it and don't think she's thought through it very well. But, I don't think she is a bad person.
Evensong, I love. She's going to be an excellent priest.
That doesn't mean you all aren't wrong.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Depends on what you mean by reconciling genocide with the life of Christ. With Christ's life and teaching as an example, Christians cannot justify genocide. On the other hand, Jesus never claims the Father is any other but the God of Israel. Jesus never claims the destruction of the Amalekites or any of the other unsavory OT narratives were wrong. Jesus never says God will not judge those who continue in sin harshly. Rather, the Incarnation event is God's ultimate revelation of God's love and mercy but rejecting Jesus has consequences. In the OT, God offered opportunities for repentance before judgment. The First Advent was about offering forgiveness, reconciliation, and relationship. The Second Advent will be about judgment. Judgment will not be pleasant. So, the actual Jesus of the Gospels when taken in context isn't the least bit incompatible with the God of the OT. Only by ignoring what the Gospels actually say as well as the rest of the NT can one say otherwise.
That's nicely argued, but it does seem to be arguing from the absence evidence versus its presence. Could we not argue that Jesus didn't specifically endorse genocide and Joshua-war type behaviour because it either did not concern him as a historical issue and not presently relevant, or because he disapproved? -- not withstanding that just because writings in the OT say God approved and ordered genocide doesn't make it true. Particularly when we consider when the various stories were written down after generations of telling them around the campfire. The solidification of a genocidal story with an approving god standing as the general and chief cheerleader works pretty well when you're enslaved by Babylonians or not doing so well against a subsequent enemy.
More positively, considering the resonance of various biblical passages even with present experience, like your president Obama's reading of Psalm 46 for a Sept 11 memorial. Or the use of psalm 72 to create the Dominion of Canada, and our motto, "from sea to sea".
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I at least put more of an effort into justifying my shit ...
I agree with you there - you put a lot of effort into justifying your shit.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
BA.
I'm sorry again that I EVER behaved, wrote, thought as if that isn't a given. That you love me. That I failed to love you regardless. I will NEVER do that again. Which is an aspirational lie. Don't let me. The love of God for me in you, through you is a given. That changes, MUST change, everything. Hot eyes mate. I'm so sorry and you, not for the first time, have graciously poured hot coals on my head.
How many times have I done this here?! Although it is never the same stream twice. And therefore is the same metanarrative.
I know I'm OTT, that don't mean it ain't subjectively real and true. Even if I am a tad 'bipolar' about it. Brother.
Next, the trivia: I'm still vestigially vitalist and although all pigs do go to heaven they ain't existentially aware. Even if human awareness IS material, it's the ultimate emergent phenomenon bar none.
And now we've got all the givens in place and my mild OCD: I cannot doubt that Jesus was first an orthodox Iron Age Jew before He was anything further. Which is nonsense as the nature of God was in Him from conception and that must ... change a person. Change their consciousness. Not just that but He seemed to be in communion with the other hypostases, the Father (who, for me, was never the God of Israel) and the Spirit before He could remember. His relational communion ended to His shock as He died.
This is a person who had memories (by the Spirit?) of being God: He remembered Satan fall like lightning. It is implicit perhaps (because it could have been deductive, not remembered) in His statement of being before Abraham. His memory cannot have been that per se, but by humanly unsustainable glimpse or trail I suspect. And the memory is a Platonic flash projection in a human skull?
For me the nature that was in Him was the nature of the Son. Is that orthodox? And the Son, the Logos is the God shining on the scorched bloody OT mud. So did He remember ordering genocide through Samuel? That is an open question. He may well have believed it.
I now find it absolutely impossible to reconcile Him and His example to me personally, in pacifism, in inclusion, in submission and subversion, in righteousness as social justice to Him as God the Killer. I cannot justify God the Killer.
And neither can anyone else, including God in this life. Not for me and those that come after us. Although the conservative, which I have been for 40 tears (I'll leave that Freudian typo!), like the poor, we will always have with us, in us. Humanity IS evolving philosophically, morally, socially it can't not.
I can no longer hold God the Killer in tension with Jesus. Which doesn't mean that God the Killer is not so. He's none of my concern. I don't know Him. I don't understand Him. I don't believe in Him. I have no faith in Him whatsoever.
Even if He IS. That's His business and like Job and Daniel I must nod, bow to that and go about my business in His light as Jesus the image of the Father the image of Jesus in the One image.
If He reverts to that in Judgement, again, that is none of my business. It is not evangelistic for me or anyone I know - apart form those for whom it still is in their narrative - and I will never use it evangelistically except in a postmodern, inclusive, liberal, progressive way.
As for Satan ... Jesus recalled him and knew him. If He just knew him, that could be easily psychologically rationalized. But He recalled him. If truly, that makes reality ... very strange indeed way beyond quantum indeterminacy and God having no choice in creation.
The affective power of God the Killer throughout the Bible including the 'hard sayings' of Jesus is immense. For me. Always has been, always will be. I atavistically LOVE the God who pops by under the Terebinth Trees of Mamre.
But it is entirely suspect now. Entirely. It's a Cheshire Cat smile that disappears every time I turn to it. Unlike Satan, who is just out of peripheral vision. Even though I forget him in his Keyser Soze game. He is far more incredibly credible.
The hard sayings of Jesus just don't stand up as in any way literal, or prophetic. They stand as culturally contextually, stylistically perfect. I don't doubt the gospel writers for a moment. That what we read is separated from what they faithfully, accurately recorded in any significant way. Despite their wildly different perspectives and agendas. The same with Samuel's thousand year older narrative. And Jesus' human belief in it and understanding and even 'memory' that He was accurately portrayed in it even if He wasn't.
It's IMPOSSIBLE to know. For me. And it cannot therefore matter. For me.
But to conservatives, for whom it is also impossible to know, it matters. As it did to me when conservative and ever more fundamentalist going back.
And yes, if I was dealing with someone who needed it, I COULD and ... giving the lie to what I said above about only using it as a postmodern stepping stone ... WOULD use it to put the fear of God in someone, including myself, but it would be in failure to evangelize: I will have come to the conclusion I, not they, they needed it as I'd run out of postmodern, liberal, inclusive, progressive rhetoric. I'd have to be desperate. And hope that God picked up the pieces.
Two paragraphs back cannot but look condescending and patronizing and I don't know what to do about that.
If Love pure and omnipotent and undefiled says to me in the Resurrection, "Look mate, as you were fond of saying about how I created, there was no other way but to be pragmatic, to intervene as killer, to utilitarianly MINIMIZE suffering and loss and MAXIMIZE salvation and there is no other way than to pass sentence on you and your Dad and all these on my left (Hi Rob, Mohandas) AS YOU CAN PLAINLY SEE. Even Satan over there agrees it couldn't be fairer." or some such, amen.
But that cannot possibly work for me or any postmodern I know. There is no going back. But there MUST be inclusion of those, like yourself, on a DIFFERENT parallel path. You are not BACK in any sense. I MUST esteem you greater, more worthy regardless. That the world may know that we love one another DESPITE these vast human gulfs.
And I must NEVER forget this.
I hope that you do feel good about yourself, you should, as you did not forget.
Martin
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Evensong:
I "simplistically" asserted you cannot reconcile tribal genocide with the ministry of Christ. You have to choose.
No, you don't. Nothing in the ministry of Jesus implied he disagreed with Samuel. Jesus does change the teaching of Moses somewhat which is to be expected. Jesus is a new law giver. And that is also why Christians can accept that God may have ordered genocide in the OT but oppose genocide now. Jews have to deal with the Amalekites in their own way.
Sounds to me like you've chosen.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Also, Evensong, I'm disappointed in your lack of concern for swine. Why is it OK to kill swine but not humans? I'm serious. Remember, as far as I can tell, we all accept evolution and an earth that is billions of years old. What makes us in our current form so special?
Are you an animal rights activist too?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And I must NEVER forget this.
I hope that you do feel good about yourself, you should, as you did not forget.
I was similarly impressed.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0