|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" bumper sticker
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
Fine to hear you got to see another side of Germany. I am surprised the museum said much about the city's destruction, though.
They do, they have 'before' and 'after' models of the city. Before the bombing, after the bombing and after the rebuild. And a whole room dedicated to the history of it.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I was exaggerating, Laurelin, but like all exaggerations there's a grain of truth in it. The Brethren Bible studies I attended as a young man did used to down-play the Beatitudes and so on ... in fact whilst they gave me a pretty good overview of the Bible - where things fitted together and so on - I increasingly look back on them with ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
You forgot Satan, goats (Matthew 25) and seasonal fruit trees (Mark 11).
Well, if we're going to go non-human, we have to include the pigs on the hillside as well... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 13. March 2013, 16:24: Message edited by: BWSmith ]
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I think there might be some truth in the sentiment of the sticker. What about the story of the good Samaritan? The woman caught in adultery? "Blessed are the peacemakers?"
It seems often, whilst Jesus never condemned the law, nor the figures of the Old Testament, he showed us a better way, which was non-violent.
I agree that non-violence is a "better way", but the question then is, a better way to what?
In the Kingdom of God, if all else fails, God will raise us from the dead and punish the evil eternally.
However, if we practice consistent non-violence with muslim extremists (or any of America's enemies for that matter), will there be any end to the violence they inflict on us, until they've either destroyed or taken over the country? Is that God's will?
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The OP seems to betray a very literal approach to some of the stories of apparent 'bombings' in the OT ... I tend to take these things rather more figuratively or else as a 'God-on-our-side-not-on-theirs' thing on the part of the writers/compilers ... and there's always that puzzling thing in Joshua when the 'Captain of the Hosts of the Lord' appears and when asked, 'Are you for us or for our enemies?' doesn't answer in the affirmative to either - Joshua 5:13-15.
Well, the business of all the Canaanite tribes was a joke. The historical evidence for the existence or non-existence of such peoples is complex.
However, in 2 Kings we are certainly dealing with real groups of people that existed when talking about God destroying an entire army of Assyrians (or the destruction of the northern and southern kingdoms being God's will).
So the "figurative bombing" argument might work in the early books of the OT with disputed people that may not have existed (Amalekites) or people that did exist but whose relationship with Israel was complex (Philistines), but at some point, it becomes clear that "real people did die", and the Bible claims that this was God's will, and we have to address that.
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
As I read it, Jesus didn't directly attack the money lenders. The whip was used to drive the animals out, and he overturned the tables the money lenders were using. It was an act of non-violent civil disobedience, like the destruction of GM crops trials or the disruption of coal deliveries to a power station. It was a protest, not a violent act.
Judge for yourselves:
Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” John 2:13-16
Seems to me that the only way one concludes that Jesus didn't hit anybody with the cords is if one asserts beforehand that Jesus wouldn't do such a thing.
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
]I agree that non-violence is a "better way", but the question then is, a better way to what?
In the Kingdom of God, if all else fails, God will raise us from the dead and punish the evil eternally.
However, if we practice consistent non-violence with muslim extremists (or any of America's enemies for that matter), will there be any end to the violence they inflict on us, until they've either destroyed or taken over the country?
The bit I've italicised in the middle there is the bit I always suspect has nothing to do with God at all, but has crept into many theologies through the back door marked Human Anger.
America's enemies mostly identify themselves as such due to violence committed against them previously and currently, by America and its associated nations - UK included - whether it be military or economic. They didn't start out that way, nor must they always be so.
quote:
Is that God's will?
Well, the Muslim extremists seem to think so, don't they? Who's going to take the first step towards eliminating their own viciousness from the god they create in their image?
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
However, if we practice consistent non-violence with muslim extremists (or any of America's enemies for that matter), will there be any end to the violence they inflict on us, until they've either destroyed or taken over the country? Is that God's will?
I don't think God's Will is particularly concerned with any earthly country. America, Britain or any other "Christian Nation" could utterly cease to exist tomorrow and His Work would still be being done.
Christians have endured centuries of persecution and violence before, so what's to say they won't again?
As for whether we should practice non-violence with our enemies, I'm reminded of Jesus' words about giving our coats as well and going the extra mile (Matthew 5). There's something in the epistles (Romans 12) to that effect as well, if you're one of those evangelical types who heed to Paul more readily than to Jesus...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
I think it's very problematic from a Christian standpoint to claim that there can be actions which are "right" but which would not be sanctioned by Jesus.
Not right in the sense of 'holy' or 'righteous', Bran. Only in the sense of 'the lesser of two evils'. What do you think a nation facing the threat of invasion should do? Allow the tanks to roll in, without resistance?
I did say that these are not easy issues to resolve from a Christian POV. Far from it.
I can't imagine that, as a disciple of Christ, I would ever want to spill another person's blood. The notion is horrific. But let's say there's a guy who kidnaps some teenagers and keeps them hostage with the intent of raping and killing them (which is what happened to some Amish girls just a few years ago). If there was any other way to stop this man except by killing him, by God I'd do it. But if the only way to stop him killing the children is to shoot him - I can see no way round that dilemma.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
War is necessary, sometimes - but only as the best of two evils when there is no other choice. Not as first choice action - ever.
Agreed.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
Fine to hear you got to see another side of Germany. I am surprised the museum said much about the city's destruction, though.
They do, they have 'before' and 'after' models of the city. Before the bombing, after the bombing and after the rebuild. And a whole room dedicated to the history of it.
Same in Munich. I was in what I think was the former palace and it was mentioned. Same in Nuremburg, where it was mentioned in a church that was bombed. A church in Hamburg as well. I seem to recall something mentioned in a museum in Ulm.
We also have Dresden, where the myth of German victimhood has only recently given away.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” John 2:13-16
Seems to me that the only way one concludes that Jesus didn't hit anybody with the cords is if one asserts beforehand that Jesus wouldn't do such a thing.
The text does not say he hit anyone with the cords. It says He drove out all, both sheep and cattle. There is no mention of his hitting anyone. When the sheep and cattle were driven out, their owners naturally followed.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crśsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
So Jesus may or may not be in favor of bombing anyone, but he definitely supports cattle rustling?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
@ OP
Today apparently, Jesus wouldn't bomb anyone personally, he'd send a drone. And he'd bomb brown people who worship a wrong headed God concept and refuse to do what they are told.
The better question is perhaps who should Jesus bomb?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Judge for yourselves:
Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” John 2:13-16
Seems to me that the only way one concludes that Jesus didn't hit anybody with the cords is if one asserts beforehand that Jesus wouldn't do such a thing.
I'm afraid my Bible omits the bit just before, 'So he made a whip out of cords,' where it reads, 'Jesus said, "I would I were able to firebomb the place but this perverse and godless generation hath not yet invented incendiary devices, so I'm afraid I'm stuck using something that only barely qualifies as an offensive weapon at all and that not unless you push it. Fortunately, my future disciples in their true peaceableness of heart will be able to interpret this whip of cords as justifying the use of lethal weapons up to and including nukes".'
Seriously, if Jesus had wanted to set a pattern for lethal violence, he could have used a weapon that was a bit more, well, lethal. It's not like his disciples hadn't got their hands on a couple of swords. Putting the temple traders to the sword would have made sure he sent the message you want him to have sent.
In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus cleanses the Temple again directly after riding into the town on a donkey. Riding into the town on a donkey is a sign that he comes as a peaceful ruler not as a warlike ruler. So Jesus cleansing the Temple cannot be an endorsement of war.
[ 13. March 2013, 19:55: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I think we need the Infancy Gospel of Thomas about now.
quote:
In another episode, a child disperses water that Jesus has collected, Jesus then curses him, which causes the child's body to wither into a corpse. Another child dies when Jesus curses him when he apparently accidentally bumps into Jesus, throws a stone at Jesus, or punches Jesus (depending on the translation).
...
It is also seen in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas that from the age of five years old until the age of twelve, the young Jesus had killed at least three people, two children and one adult teacher. The children were not brought back to life and their parents remained blind.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So the German bombers didn't have their customary escort of fighters, did they Rolyn?
This testimony, from a factual TV documentary, was given by a bomber command veteran who actually witnessed it . He remembered the chatter going around as to whether they should use their machine-guns, this was followed by the definite order to do nothing.
My guess is that the incident came at a later stage when war weariness had set in , and fighter escorts on both sides had been depleted.
Truces and comradery between opposing sides during warfare is not uncommon . Whether Jesus gives this sort of thing His Blessing or not I wouldn't like to say.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Fascinating BWSmith. You can't even read what you quote.
And Dafyd: ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) as Laurelin said.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
the blood and thunder and judgement and smitings and so on were all to be drooled over?
I am disappointed in you, Gamaliel.
As C.S. Lewis points out, the fact that Augustine believed that hell was going to be full of unbaptised babies does not mean that Augustine wanted hell to be full of unbaptised babies.
(And incidentally, I am not comparing myself to Augustine - the only thing we have in common is a constant temptation to lust!)
If I had my druthers the Bible would teach universalism, but anyone – not just evangelicals – who takes biblical revelation seriously, has no choice but to recognize that the Christian deity, of whom the Son is a part, has carried out, and is going to carry out, horrific temporal judgments, followed by eternal banishment for Christ-rejectors.
Far from “drooling” (and I know of precious few Christians who have taken, or do take, any pleasure in the damnation of anyone) I find that intensely distressing, but I recognize that the only valid choices are to incorporate it somehow into my theology, however difficult that might be, or give up the faith.
A smorgasbord faith in which we pick only what suits us, ignore difficulties, and invent happy endings, is simply not honest.
Nor does it work to make the Synoptics in general, and the Sermon on the Mount in particular, the hermeneutical touchstone (or rather, sleight of hand) to which we subordinate all the rest of Scripture.
For a start, Paul’s earliest letters (Galatians, Thessalonians) almost certainly predate the Synoptics, so these three Gospels do not necessarily represent the most ancient tradition.
Secondly, to cite Lewis again, it is the Jesus of the Synoptics, not the Paul of the epistles (or for that matter the Jesus of John’s Gospel) who predicts dire judgments on this world at the end of the age, followed by a final judgment which is expressed in the graphic imagery of weeping, gnashing of teeth, outer darkness and fiery furnaces.
The question of whether Jesus uses violence is, of course, completely separate from the issue of whether or not Christians can support violence, and if so, under what circumstances and against whom.
And yes, I am aware the dispensationalist theory that the Synoptics represent kingdom teaching for the Jews, and are not written for Christians, though I never bought into it myself, and it seems to have disappeared from plafforms (not pulpits, look you!) years ago.
It must be acknowledged, however, that those who taught it were trying to deal with a genuine difficulty, which is that the theology of the Synoptics, on the face of it, is different from that of John and the Pauline epistles.
For example, Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount teaches that we forgive in order to be forgiven (Matt. 6:14-15), whereas Paul teaches that we are to forgive because we have been forgiven (Eph. 4:32).
[ 14. March 2013, 00:43: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If I had my druthers the Bible would teach universalism, but anyone - not just evangelicals - who takes biblical revelation seriously, has no choice but to recognize that the Christian deity, of whom the Son is a part, has carried out, and is going to carry out, horrific temporal judgments, followed by eternal banishment for Christ-rejectors.
I'm sure I'm far from being alone in taking Biblical revelation very seriously and yet finding that there is a viable choice not to attribute horrific judgments and eternal banishment to God. Predicting dire judgments and using extreme imagery is not the same as being the source of the predicted or imaged results.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, if you're disappointed with me, then I'm disappointed with you, Kaplan. I've already stated that I was speaking hyperbolically.
Of course I don't believe that the Brethren I knew back in the day used to 'drool' at the prospect of eternal judgement and damnation. All I was highlighting was an apparent anomaly. They (or some of them) were quite prepared to relegate the Sermon on the Mount to an 'earlier dispensation' a it were, yet for some reason they were quite happy to retain the judgemental and violent aspects of those earlier dispensations or in-between-times or whatever they were in their complicated schema.
That's the point I was making. That they were just as selective in their own way as liberals are accused of being by more conservative types.
And sure, I take your point about the C S Lewis point about Augustine and the unbaptised babies issue.
As for the temptation thing - well, there is no temptation that is not common to man and many of us would be in the same boat as St Augustine on that one!
I'm not advocating universalism. I'd prefer the scriptures to teach that too, but they don't. However, I think we can legitimately discuss what eternal judgement means and - without minimising it in any way - consider how it might differ from the popular blood, guts and thunder approach.
I take biblical revelation seriously too, but perhaps I take some of it - notably Revelation and so on - in a more figurative sense than you do.
I don't think that this represents a smorgasbord faith, rather it might represent a more nuanced one where there aren't such black-and-white choices and where we can leave the more 'mysterious' aspects to God.
That may sound like a cop-out but it's not intended to be.
I wasn't elevating the Synoptics nor the Sermon of the Mount above the rest of the NT, simply attempting to redress what might be an imbalance the other way. The more liberal vicar in this town certainly does favour the Synoptics over John's Gospel - which he insists on calling 'the Fourth Gospel' rather than 'John's' - and he appears to hate Revelation with a passion and wishes it had never been canonised into scripture.
That's an extreme view, of course.
I would suggest, though, that there are equally extreme approaches within the evangelical or more conservative camps where there are far too many 'Psalm-John' Christians who like the lovely bits of the Psalms and the main Johannine proof texts about Christ's divinity and leave out the rest.
And then, as has been discussed, there is the tendency of particular types of conservative evangelical to focus on the epistles often to the detriment of the Gospels. Let's face it, neither the Synoptics nor John's Gospel allows fit the kind of neat schemas so beloved of evangelicals.
You could easily read the Gospels (without the epistles) and come up with a completely different soteriology etc to the one that evangelicals have developed - and yes, that would include the dire warnings and fiery imagery etc.
My point is that many conservative evangelicals appear to have retained those aspects and yet neglected other aspects that are clearly there in the Gospels - such as the Sermon on The Mount.
It works the other way of course, with the more liberal types.
So - yes, the theology of the Synoptics is different in some ways from that of John and the Pauline epistles and that's something we all have to wrestle with. In some instances, I'm not sure we can neatly reconcile the apparent discrepancies - but perhaps that's to be expected? How could it not be that way? We've got people struggling to get to grips with and to understand the Christ-event - there are different and apparently contradictory accounts of some of the same incidents, for instance.
What is remarkable is the degree of consensus. I can live with the discrepancies.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
While I'm at it, here's an analogy that might help ...
Kaplan is reluctant to compare himself with St Augustine in any way other than sharing his propensity towards particular temptations ...
I'd be even more reluctant to compare myself with Christ in anything other than a shared humanity - although not a shared divinity of course - although we might accept the Eastern concept that we can can become by grace what God is by nature ... (and be careful how we understand that) ...
You get my drift, I hope.
But the analogy is this ... Just as Jesus used hyperbole ('if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out') then surely it is not unreasonable to interpret some of the more violent and judgemental sayings in the Gospels and the things in Revelation in that way?
I mean, I'm not comparing myself to Jesus, obviously, but I've been using hyperbole all along on this thread. I've accused particular groups of ignoring the Sermon on the Mount and also of 'drooling' over the prospect of eternal judgement.
Now, of course I don't mean that literally. I am exaggerating to make a point. Whatever the vagaries of their theology and approach (and we all have vagaries) - many of these Brethren people lived exemplary Christian lives - or as exemplary as anything you might find anywhere else - this isn't a competition ...
So, by the same token, just as I'm exaggerating and using hyperbole and somewhat apocalyptic or metaphorical language then surely that's what the scriptures are doing in these instances of death and destruction and judgement?
Particularly in Revelation. We don't literally believe that Christ's hair was like wool and a sword emanated literally from his mouth, do we?
It's picture language.
I wouldn't tear Revelation out of the Bible. It ha a great deal to teach us. The difficulty comes when we take it too literally. The Eastern Churches recognised this and that's why they were the last to accept it into the canon.
You've only got to look at church history to see the baleful effects of taking an overly literal approach to Revelation. Think Munster. Think of rather strange and quirky suburban sect pouring over the scriptures on dank afternoons ...
But think also of the base-communities and the activists who've been inspired by it to keep going , to press on towards the day when the Kingdoms of this world become the Kingdom of our God and of his Christ and when the marriage supper of the Lamb comes ...
We need to rescue Revelation from the fundamentalists. It can rally us to love and good works. It can rally us to an appreciation of our Coming King in all his glory, to work towards a New Jerusalem.
I could get quite excited by all that.
Taking the kind of line that Kaplan appears to be taking will surely only lead to depression, morbidity and the kind of blinkered, sectarian approach where these quirky old characters poring over the scriptures on a dank afternoon consider themselves and themselves only as the one true remnant or the pure and unadulterated Bride ...
Now, I'm not suggesting for a moment that this is what Kaplan believes - but you can see a trajectory that could develop in that direction can't you?
Just as you can see one that could develop into a highly materialised 'social gospel' in the version I've articulated.
Put them together. That way lies health.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Think of rather strange and quirky suburban sect pouring over the scriptures on dank afternoons ...
What do they pour?
The wine of astonishment?
Oil - presumably not that of gladness?
And "suburban"?...."dank"?..."afternoons"?
You won't hold back if you think I'm slipping into over-literalness again, will you?
[ 14. March 2013, 09:18: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Doh!
Apologies for the typo. My bad.
I meant 'poring', of course and as you'll have deduced.
As for why 'dank' and 'suburban'? Well, it might just be a British thing but I've got an impression of some of the more separatist or exotic of the indigenous (as opposed to imported) UK sects consisting of slightly eccentric individuals gathering in otherwise ordinary, unprepossessing settings to pore over the scriptures and discuss arcane eschatological theories ...
I'm not necessarily thinking Brethren here, although it would apply to some of them.
My comments are tinged with some admiration and respect.
Where I live there's a truly wonderful music teacher (he's teaching my wife and daughter) who is an all round lovely bloke - yet who belongs to some odd group which has adopted Adventist views and which meet on Saturdays in a tin-hut with magic-marker black-felt pen notices outside. They meet at 3:16pm on the dot as a deliberate echo of John 3:16.
You wouldn't think he had eccentric views at all if you met him - he just comes across as a very eirenic Christian. Yet he's convinced that the Bible tells us that we should meet on Saturday afternoons ...
I'm not sure they're officially affiliated to the Seventh Day Adventists but they have speakers from there from time to time.
As far as the Brethren go then it'd be similar ... generally stolid burghers and lovely old blokes and old dears who're in no wise any different from anyone else - except they might have some wierd Readers' Digest influenced view of eschatology or some odd pet theories of their own.
I'm sure there'll be equivalents in Australia. Only without the dank suburban afternoons.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I take it that textual criticism is not part of the discussion? That the ideas that Jesus might be part of a scheme to lambaste people in the world all the way to a hell for an eternity of suffering must be read within a historical time period when Jerusalem had been destroyed, which hit hard after they'd also lost their leader?
Some of us consider that the second coming occurs all the time, but is largely missed by those who prefer flames and pain. Particularly when others are the ones on fire.
After reading much of this, I am considering that perhaps we now know why Jesus took trouble to change water to wine. He wanted to get bombed himself. As I do when I read some of this thread in the light of a family history and a local society that contains far too much of this sort of pollytwaddle.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
