Thread: Marcion, Marcion, Marcion! 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=027720
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
(Title taken from the Brady Bunch)

I keep seeing references to people self-identifying as Marcionites, and/or that we're all really Marcionites, or people being accused of being Marcionites, and I'm going crazy trying to figure out exactly what they mean when they say that. I don't know that anyone here (?) believes in, say, the notion of a demiurgic power that made the physical world, etc. When I hear "Marcion" I think, "Wasn't that the guy who was so icked out by spiders that he didn't think God could have made the world?" (The rationale being, or so I was told (but cannot find it now so my source may have been mistaken), that (for example) the way spiders trapped their prey was so creepy to Marcion that he concluded that only a bad god could have made such sadistic things. ("Bad god! Bad god! No! No!" ... sorry...)

So, Marcionites, anti-Marcionites, etc., please tell me what you're talking about. Maybe there was a big Marcion Ship thread I missed whilst offboard...
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
I've used it to refer to those who reject God as revealed in the Old Testament, believing that he is not the same God as revealed in the New. I've encountered a few in my time.
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I've used it to refer to those who reject God as revealed in the Old Testament, believing that he is not the same God as revealed in the New. I've encountered a few in my time.
But do they believe that those are different entities/beings per se, or just that there is a misunderstanding of one God's nature involved on the human level?
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I've used it to refer to those who reject God as revealed in the Old Testament, believing that he is not the same God as revealed in the New. I've encountered a few in my time.
But do they believe that those are different entities/beings per se, or just that there is a misunderstanding of one God's nature involved on the human level?
I doubt that they believe in a demiurge, no. However, their rationale behind rejecting the Old Testament God is essentially the same.
 
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I've used it to refer to those who reject God as revealed in the Old Testament, believing that he is not the same God as revealed in the New. I've encountered a few in my time.
This is similar to my usage. I would tend to use the pgrase neo-Marcionite for one who subscribes to the modern populariser of Marcion's view on this topic, noted former scientist, Richard Dawkins. In particular, *that* invective paragraph which is so widely quoted.

Though it might be more general to refer to those who speak of "the God of the Old Testament" in such a way as to imply that this is a different God from that which is sooken of in the New Testament and beyond and which was revealed to us in the incarnation of Jesus.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Marcionism discards the Hebrew Bible as unnecessary (and bad--'bad, so fortunately not necessary' is the way it's usually formulated).
The Gospel of Christ can be grafted onto your local mythology of origin, whatever it is.
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I'm going crazy trying to figure out exactly what they mean when they say that.
.
They seem to mean that we should accept their (OT-inspired) version of what God is like, as a brute fact, without raising the question of whether such a being is worthy to be worshipped.

Marcion's crime, it seems, was to point out that such a God doesn't live up to our ideals.

It's not about his "solution", which as you say nobody thinks much of these days.

Best wishes,

Russ
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
I've always thought of Marcionism as the tendency to select a personal de facto canon from within the canon, eg the tendency of some Christians to emphasise the NT epistles and practically ignore the Synoptics, and the opposite tendency to major on the Synoptics and sideline Paul.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
I have Marcionistic tendencies. As avowed I hold that scriptures contains all that is necessary for salvation. However I emphasise and place a hierarchy on parts of scripture. Being a Christian I lean much more heavily into the gospels. I find enough wonder , challenge and inspiration enough in the words and story of Jesus. I love the epistles and the OT but find them at times difficult and obtuse.

I can get very angry with those who try and trump the gospels with other parts of scripture. If is seems to be a misunderstanding of 1st order and 2nd order issues. Straining at gnats while passing camels as the man would say.

Many people I know seem able to mix "the new testament" with "the gospels" and not know they are doing it. Sometimes it feels like : well that bit is too difficult so I am going to try this easy stuff first, which often feels like law before grace.
 
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
IIRC, Marcion held that the God of the Old Testament was our old friend the gnostic demiurge and that the real God had sent Jesus to point this out. As well as the Old Testament he also held that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John were uncanonical and that the scriptures consisted of Paul's letters and Luke's Gospel. There is probably a congregation somewhere which thinks that he was on the money but the term Marcionite nowadays generally means: "Someone who does not share my understanding of the nature and importance of the Hebrew Scriptures".
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Am I right in thinking that none of Marcion's writings survive? In that case how can this topic be usefully discussed?
 
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Am I right in thinking that none of Marcion's writings survive? In that case how can this topic be usefully discussed?
In their original form, I think you are correct. However, his opponents (history written by the victors) did quote him a fair bit, so some bits of his work can be reconstructed.

It's similar with identifying the gospel authors. If I recall correctly, the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John come from Papias of Hierapolis, none of whose works are extant, but who was quoted by later historians, including Eusebius of Caesarea.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Straining at gnats while passing camels
Ouch!
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
As Jesus was Marcionite, I have to be.
 
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I don't know that anyone here (?) believes in, say, the notion of a demiurgic power that made the physical world, etc.
I guess we could describe Marcion himself as a metaphysical, or dualist, Marcionite. Most modern Marcionites are more like existential Marcionites.
 
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :
 
I have been called Marcionite quite a few times, incorrectly I think. I believe that the OT was a carefully crafted fiction written to justify the invasion and settling of Canaan and that the NT was a highly embellished account of a truly remarkable but non-supernatural teacher. To my mind that makes me a non-Christian but I have been called a heretic in general and a Marcionite specifically so many times that I don't think many people know what it means.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I'm not passing judgement either way, but I'm curious as to why in your mind that makes you a non-Christian.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As Jesus was Marcionite, I have to be.
What? How?
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I've used it to refer to those who reject God as revealed in the Old Testament, believing that he is not the same God as revealed in the New. I've encountered a few in my time.
But do they believe that those are different entities/beings per se, or just that there is a misunderstanding of one God's nature involved on the human level?
I doubt that they believe in a demiurge, no. However, their rationale behind rejecting the Old Testament God is essentially the same.
Care to unpack that assertion?
 
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not passing judgement either way, but I'm curious as to why in your mind that makes you a non-Christian.
By "non-supernatural" I mean "not the son of any god". I don't think many Christian denominations see Jesus as just some ordinary bloke with a few good ideas.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Well Leo, was Jesus the express image of the God of the Old Testament?
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I've used it to refer to those who reject God as revealed in the Old Testament, believing that he is not the same God as revealed in the New. I've encountered a few in my time.
But do they believe that those are different entities/beings per se, or just that there is a misunderstanding of one God's nature involved on the human level?
I doubt that they believe in a demiurge, no. However, their rationale behind rejecting the Old Testament God is essentially the same.
Care to unpack that assertion?
Example: Our friend here Martin. OT God: murderer. Jesus: nice and cuddly. Therefore they cannot be the same. The only difference, of course, is that Marcion concluded that the God of the OT was a demiurge whereas for Martin he is the figmant of the imagination of a bronze age people. The rationale is essentially the same though: I don't like the OT God so I conclude he is not the NT God.

[ 08. August 2014, 01:48: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Surely naming heresies is based on the content of the heresy, and not just the rationale?
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Surely naming heresies is based on the content of the heresy, and not just the rationale?
Probably. Perhaps "neo-Marcionite" might be a better term then, as someone else suggested above.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Surely naming heresies is based on the content of the heresy, and not just the rationale?
Probably. Perhaps "neo-Marcionite" might be a better term then, as someone else suggested above.
I think somebody should find who the heresiarch is, and name it after him/her. Why should they be allowed to remain anonymous?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not passing judgement either way, but I'm curious as to why in your mind that makes you a non-Christian.
By "non-supernatural" I mean "not the son of any god". I don't think many Christian denominations see Jesus as just some ordinary bloke with a few good ideas.
OK, thanks. I asked because a friend has just blogged about reaching a similar position to you, but he still self-identifies as a Christian.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Nobody likes Him Ad Orientem.

Whereas Jesus is loved.

I wonder why?
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Nobody likes Him Ad Orientem.
Um... I would think that non-Christian Jews are pretty big fans of the OT God without being really into Jesus all that much... [Confused]
 
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
By "non-supernatural" I mean "not the son of any god". I don't think many Christian denominations see Jesus as just some ordinary bloke with a few good ideas.
This describes the Unitarians pretty well, although they no longer consider themselves explicitly Christian.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
ISTM that this thread is lacking a clear focus. Is it about the supposed views of Marcion or is it about the relationship between God as revealed in the Old and New Testaments? If the latter then the issue of Marcion confuses the issue. It also seems to me that to contrast the OT God with the NT God is an over-simplification because the OT God goes through several transformations e.g. the God of Judges is very different from the God of Jonah- the latter being much closer to the universal God of the NT than the tribal God of earlier times.
 
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think somebody should find who the heresiarch is, and name it after him/her. Why should they be allowed to remain anonymous?
That would be Nelson Jones.
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
For me it's been what Shipmates mean when they use the term about themselves or other Shipmates or about society in general. The historical Marcion info is out there for the reading.

I think I'd agree that bringing Marcion into it makes things a tad confusing as it also brings in demiurges and things like that, which was one of the things I was thinking of. I'm not sure "neo-Marcionite" helps either. (Nor, for that matter, red, blue, or green Marcionite. Whereas ordinary green Marcionite simply weakens one's faith in the OT God being the same as the NT God, red Marcionite has unpredictable effects that only last up to 48 hours, and blue Marcionite only affects Bizarros, and... I'll go now.)
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Well Leo, was Jesus the express image of the God of the Old Testament?
Yes - it is the same God as the NT - one who cares passionately for justice and peace, whoaw law Jesus said he came to fulfil and from which not a jot will be removed.

There is more about love in the OT than the new and more about hell in the NT than the old.
 
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
This describes the Unitarians pretty well, although they no longer consider themselves explicitly Christian.
Yes, which is why I am at a loss when people insist that I am a Christian heretic rather than a non-Christian. To me the complete character change between the OT and the NT disproves the whole shebang which is not the same as Marcion's position (as far as I understand it, that is).
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As Jesus was Marcionite, I have to be.
As Jesus was a fan of the Dallas Cowboys, I have to be.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
There are limits.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
And there is more about drowning and plaguing and smiting and burning and electrocuting people and devouring them alive with the earth and setting hornets and bears on them and putting babies to the sword and expecting people to honour their oaths and murder their daughters and ... that kind of justice and peace than any recognizable form of justice and peace.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
There are limits.
I know right. Jesus was a Lakers fan. I say, "Go Spurs." Of course Jesus didn't support all of the right teams. How could he have?
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
You see? You DO understand! To err is human.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Indeed

The places where Jesus agrees with me and mine are evidence of His divinity.

The places where Jesus disagrees with us are evidence of his humanity.

What does that say about Me and Mine?

[ 08. August 2014, 12:59: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And there is more about drowning and plaguing and smiting and burning and electrocuting people and devouring them alive with the earth and setting hornets and bears on them and putting babies to the sword and expecting people to honour their oaths and murder their daughters and ... that kind of justice and peace than any recognizable form of justice and peace.
For some comparisons and statistics which disprove the Marcionite notion see this about the God of love in the OT and wrath in the NT
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
God kills only twenty million plus in the OT and promises to be responsible for the deaths of billions in the NT although only actually killed three.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
This whole thing about "the God of the OT" versus "the God of the NT" is a ridiculous argument, simply because there isn't a single, coherent idea of "the God of the OT". Through the timescale of the OT, we see the ideas about God/YHWH change and develop.

Early writings see God as the tribal god of the Israelites, competing against all the other local deities. YHWH appears here at his most bloodthirsty and violent. As we move through the centuries, the idea of one God slowly emerges, as does the change in character to become someone filled with love and mercy and committed to justice.

But the transformation is not smooth or linear. At times it is like a debate, where the opposing ideas of God go head to head. The God of Ezra is pretty despicable, whilst David's loving shepherd of Psalm 23 is very appealing.

I would say that the God revealed through Jesus completes the journey of discovery about God we see in the varied OT writings.

(Although perhaps "completes" is the wrong word. It implies that there is nothing more to know, which I don't think is the case.)
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
O the G, what about the God revealed in Revelation?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
From a Christian standpoint, there is a single coherent idea of God in the OT. A God that shows mercy to the Assyrians who repent in no way contradicts accounts of a God who punishes those who do not repent. A God who forgives gentiles who repent is perfectly consistent with a God the NT says loves the world and sent His Son to save whosoever believes. What there isn't in the Bible is a God completely compatible with one version of contemporary Western ideals.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Certainly not, Jesus is far more radical, socialist, humane, pacifist, just, equitable, loving.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
No left wing Westerner lives up to the ideals of the left. If they did, liberal guilt wouldn't plague so many affluent lefties. Of course, Jesus as the ideal leftie would be more socialist and pacifist than the typical leftie actually is.

At one time, H. Richard Niebuhr's Christ and Culture was widely read in seminaries across the United States. It's an excellent book. What we have here with the current version of Marcionism is simply the Christ of Culture. It isn't new. Liberal Protestants have been preaching it for 200 years. Barth and company recognized the folly of it. See the Barmen Declaration for an example.
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
From a Christian standpoint, there is a single coherent idea of God in the OT. A God that shows mercy to the Assyrians who repent in no way contradicts accounts of a God who punishes those who do not repent. A God who forgives gentiles who repent is perfectly consistent with a God the NT says loves the world and sent His Son to save whosoever believes. What there isn't in the Bible is a God completely compatible with one version of contemporary Western ideals.
Aye!
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
From a Christian standpoint, there is a single coherent idea of God in the OT.
That's just nonsense. It's as absurd a comment as any made recently by Alex Salmond about Scottish Independence. In other words, it's a statement made in total disregard for any facts. It cannot stand up to even the slightest examination.

(BTW, I object strongly to the utterly unsubstantiated implication in your statement that yours is the only Christian view. Does that mean that, because I don't agree, I can't be a real Christian?)
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
No it isn't. All your posts are nonsense. That was easy enough. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Quote Barmen where it contradicts Jesus.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
You misunderstood me. The Barmen Declaration is an example of Barth and company recognizing the folly of the Christ of Culture paradigm. I thought that would be obvious from the fact Karl Barth is the primary author of The Barmen Declaration.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
As is Jesus' pacifism, humanism, socialism, feminism: all inclusive justice.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Your last post wasn't a complete thought.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Amen
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Glad that's settled.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Amen
Martin, if my memory serves, you were put on adminly notice to post with greater clarity. We hosts can be forgetful (and forgiving), but my advice is: don't assume the admins have forgotten, or will be indulgent.

What I suggest here is not a pithy response to this post from you along the lines of "Sir", but repentance, which as John Wimber explained it, means "you never do that again".

/hosting
 
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Nobody likes Him Ad Orientem.

Whereas Jesus is loved.

I wonder why?
But Jesus is the God of the Old Testament - it's just a matter of what the nature of revelation is.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
I apologize for the blithe assumption and the lack of clarity, of both of which I was consciously unaware.

I fail to see the relevance of the Barmen Declaration; Richard Niebuhr's Christ and Culture, yes. Hence my responses. Where in Barmen is the folly of Christ of Culture recognized? Where is that obvious?

As obvious as Jesus' Marcionism?

I followed the unobvious obviousness of Barmen contra Christ and Culture with that; the obvious obviousness of Jesus' Marcionism, which was followed by Beeswax Altar's non sequitur of that being 'incomplete', which I thought was ironic, i.e. my list wasn't long enough even therefore it was too long, I didn't realise it was just illogical.

The ultimate completing of things can be said with 'Amen'. Which is why I said it.
And neither is this discussion, which we need to start again as grown ups, just about Christ of Culture. Of, Against, Above, Transforming and In Paradox: all.

Jesus was OBVIOUSLY Marcionite. Or schizophrene.

If someone can faithfully, rationally lead me back to the darkness of squaring the circle of Jesus with the realpolitik God who demiurgically drowned, burned, electrocuted, plagued, assassinated, slaughtered or used His Chosen and Satan to do so as a warm up to how He'll be in the Apocalypse, I'll go forward with that.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
If someone can faithfully, rationally lead me back to the darkness of squaring the circle of Jesus with the realpolitik God who demiurgically drowned, burned, electrocuted, plagued, assassinated, slaughtered or used His Chosen and Satan to do so as a warm up to how He'll be in the Apocalypse, I'll go forward with that.

Well, a passaage I've always found interesting from the Gospels, and which may or may not provide a clue here...

Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

My take on that is Jesus is essentially saying...

"Okay, people were a bunch of savages back in OT days, so God[via Moses] had to take that into account when deciding what kind of laws to put in place. But, come on guys, we've made some progress since then, haven't we? So we should have laws more befitting the standards of decency to which we now aspire."

In which case, it wouldn't be that the deities changed between the OT and the NT, or even the nature of one deity. Rather, humanity changed, and the deity adjusted his approach to reflect that.

link

[ 09. August 2014, 15:10: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
But Stetson, The Deity DIDN'T change! Just look at Him in the Apocalypse. Incarnate He wasn't well obviously. Not Himself.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
But Stetson, The Deity DIDN'T change! Just look at Him in the Apocalypse. Incarnate He wasn't well obviously. Not Himself.
Well, the Apocalypse is kinda like the big action-packed ending, with car chases, machine guns, and bikini-clad bimbos, that Hollywood producers like to tack onto an otherwise cerebral arthouse drama, to keep the alpha-males in the audience happy.

[ 09. August 2014, 15:40: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
SOL!
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
But Stetson, The Deity DIDN'T change! Just look at Him in the Apocalypse.
Including the two places in Revelation where we're told that God will wipe away every tear (which is, of course, echoing Isaiah)? Or the part about the new heaven and the new earth?
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
So that makes the killing OK.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So that makes the killing OK.
It makes the distinction you try to draw between the God of the OT (and of Revelation) and the God of the Gospels and of the NT (sans Revelation) an invalid one. God as loving and just and God as wrathful and judging can each be found in both the OT and the NT—and in the teachings of Jesus. Matthew 13?

quote:
Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let anyone with ears listen!


[ 09. August 2014, 22:54: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Martin:
I fail to see the relevance of the Barmen Declaration; Richard Niebuhr's Christ and Culture, yes. Hence my responses. Where in Barmen is the folly of Christ of Culture recognized? Where is that obvious?

Liberal German Protestantism from 18th century forward was a clear example of the Christ of Culture archetype. Niebuhr used Ritschl as an example in his book. The Barmen Declaration was a response to the Nazi German Christians. In a nutshell, the German Christians sought to remove all the Jewish elements from Christianity and leave in its place a German Christianity. Of course, doing this meant disavowing the OT and much of the NT in favor of a Jesus interpreted through the lens of what they believed to be the best of their own culture.

Contemporary Marcionites are doing the same thing. They disregard the OT and much of the NT because it isn't palatable to their culture. They then create their own Jesus by taking what they like from the gospels, putting their own spin on it, and then disregarding the rest. Their Jesus will not be destructive as the Nazi Jesus. However, their Jesus will not be able to transform culture because their Jesus exists only to sanctify what they see as the best in their culture.

quote:
originally posted by Martin:
If someone can faithfully, rationally lead me back to the darkness of squaring the circle of Jesus with the realpolitik God who demiurgically drowned, burned, electrocuted, plagued, assassinated, slaughtered or used His Chosen and Satan to do so as a warm up to how He'll be in the Apocalypse, I'll go forward with that.
Establish a contradiction based on reason and scripture as a whole rather than feelings and emotion and I'll be happy to talk. Until then, I'm not going to repeat myself over and over again. Why waste my time?

quote:
originally posted by Martin:
So that makes the killing OK.
Yes, yes, it does.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Anadromously.

As someone said: Glad that's settled.

In other words, you can't.

Which is hard ball of me in the light of the articulate straw man proposition in the previous two paragraphs.

So the neo-orthodox believed in God the Killer? God the Pragmatist? That the Bible is basically a flat cookbook reflecting the accurate record of God engaging fully with people where they were, seeing that, raising that, in spades?

That the evolution of theology in literature in culture (the Bosch triptych comes to mind) that we see in the Bible, rising to transcendent light, is not sufficient until the miracle of Christ? That Love HAD to kill for picking up sticks on a Saturday, HAD to be homophobic AND changes His mind on all that, all for the greater good?

Or is He still homophobic?

To hide ones disposition behind 'reason' is ... human. And says it ALL really. If you wait for your heart to be changed by mere reason, Satan will be skating to work.

You feel OK about God the Killer. So did I as you know for 40 years. Whatever you do, DON'T pray 'Dominus illuminatio mea.'.

I felt a pulse of empathy there Altar.

Everything is redeemed.

Martin
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
I suppose I don't count as a Marcionite, then. (But I do like certain spiders (see prior post), so perhaps it's just as well.)

Some things in the OT I have trouble understanding, perhaps a LOT of trouble understanding, but I trust God to make it clear when we see each other face to face, and that all will indeed be well.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Putting myself back where I was not so long ago, the loudest champion here of God the Killer by far, I used to argue that in the Resurrection we would all be together in paradise with the antediluvians (ten million OOM), the inhabitants of the Cities of the Plain (a thousand or so), the Egyptians killed by the mere hundreds of thousands in the Exodus, the Israelites who died by the million (BOY you do not want God on your side!) in Sinai, Amalekites (10Ks), sundry individuals who picked up sticks or touched a box or were new born to adulterers: the mere tens of millions killed by God OT THEN there's the handful who died NT, the million who died in the Jewish wars fulfilling the Apocalypse just in type and the BILLIONS in its final fulfilment THEN the billions upon billions more of Gog Magog at the end of the Millennium THEN the billions upon billions upon billions annihilated or just tortured forever and ever to get their minds right or just forever period amen ... we'd all be cool with that because we'd all - apart from those who wanted to be ash under our feet - be in paradise and how we got there would be a distant, fading childhood dream.

Because I saw the real realpolitik God (NOT a God of our universal culture of redemptive violence, Heaven forfend!) accurately reported from Eden to The New Heaven And The New Earth.

Chas, you're very sweet.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Martin:
Anadromously.
[Confused]

Oh well, I'll play.

Catadromously

quote:
originally posted by Martin:
As someone said: Glad that's settled.
Indeed


quote:
originally posted by Martin:
Which is hard ball of me in the light of the articulate straw man proposition in the previous two paragraphs.
I don't see a strawman. Care to point it out? Those prone to expressing themselves in vague, stream of conscious ramblings are prone to being misunderstood. However, when that happens, the fault is with those who express themselves in vague, stream of conscious ramblings.

quote:
originally posted by Martin:
So the neo-orthodox believed in God the Killer? God the Pragmatist? That the Bible is basically a flat cookbook reflecting the accurate record of God engaging fully with people where they were, seeing that, raising that, in spades?
The Neo-Orthodox didn't agree on much. The Barth-Brunner feud is legendary. However, the generic Neo-Orthodox view is that scripture contains the record of God's revelation of Godself to the world. Barth is responsible for the Barmen Declaration so I'll stick with him. Barth believed in God the judge. Barth was not a fundamentalist. I'm not either.

quote:
originally posted by Martin:
That the evolution of theology in literature in culture (the Bosch triptych comes to mind) that we see in the Bible, rising to transcendent light, is not sufficient until the miracle of Christ? That Love HAD to kill for picking up sticks on a Saturday, HAD to be homophobic AND changes His mind on all that, all for the greater good?
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this bit. I'll try to respond to what I think you are saying but no guarantees. Of course, Barth was Christocentric. Barth also believed that Jesus was the God of Israel incarnate. He specifically condemned Marcion and saw in Schleiermacher and Ritschl modern expressions of that ancient heresy. Like many Reformed theologians, Barth was concerned with biblical covenants. I've already explained several times how that applies to the last bit of your paragraph.

quote:
originally posted by Martin:
To hide ones disposition behind 'reason' is ... human. And says it ALL really. If you wait for your heart to be changed by mere reason, Satan will be skating to work.
You wanted to discuss this like adults. My toddler uses feelings and emotions in her rhetoric all the time. Well, she throws temper tantrums because I don't always do what she wants and when she wants me to do it.

quote:
originally posted by Martin:
You feel OK about God the Killer. So did I as you know for 40 years. Whatever you do, DON'T pray 'Dominus illuminatio mea.'.
Doesn't matter if I'm OK with the God presented in scripture and tradition or not. I worship the God that is not the God of my own creation. I could build an idol of wood if I wanted to worship a God of my own creation.

quote:
originally posted by Martin:
I felt a pulse of empathy there Altar.
Thanks for that Martin!


quote:
originally posted by Martin:
Everything is redeemed.

And so it goes

Now you know the rest of the story
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Then you worship a God of someone else's creation. A lot of Bronze Age someone elses.

I realise you have no concept of progress, for you life has not improved since then, for blacks, for gays, for the poor, for women, it's even more arbitrary and confusing as you have to shoe horn Jesus in to that Bronze Age clog.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Apparently, rhetoric has progressed to the point that begging the question now counts as a reasoned argument. [Killing me]
 
Posted by Jude (# 3033) on :
 
I think I've called certain people Marcionists in the past. Whether or not they really are Marcionists is open to question, I admit - I was too hasty in judging them, as they were too hasty in judging me (ignore this phrase for now, it's not relevant to this discussion).

Actually, the people I refer to were very much fans on the OT God and wanted to show that He is still God in the NT. I think that I owe them an apology for classifying them wrongly, in fact they were Dualists - i.e. people who believe in a good God and an evil anti-god (i.e. the devil) who are of more or less equal status.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
You win mate.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0