|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Andrew, Justin and George
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
WTF?! ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) I have said nothing on that thread (or in the linked post) that would even remotely suggest that. Are you out of your mind?
Not at all, maybe you would care to explain rationally exactly what you meant. Because it sounded like you were saying in the fight against abortion, violence might be considered a reasonable reaction.
mr cheesy, are you wilfully trying to import another Dead Horse into another Purgatory thread?
Don't.
/hosting
[edited for top-of-page clarity]
[ 06. August 2015, 07:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Not deliberately, I'm trying to discuss a comment another poster made in another thread which seemed to be saying that certain legal activities of the state might justify violence. Isn't that the theme of this thread?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
You are
a) attempting to discuss a Dead Horse in Purgatory
b) attempting to import an argument from a thread in Dead Horses into Purgatory
c) disputing a host ruling on this thread instead of taking it to the Styx.
Kindly desist from all of the above.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm delighted at your ignorance and lack of even schoolboy scholarship IngoB, and your defense of it Beeswax Altar. Such a simple thing but bespeaks volumes.
Is SoF running an ad hominem competition again? Two points for you, and a style point for rhetorical purity: these ad hominems remain unadulterated by any hint of actual content.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And the ontic connection between the constantly changing God of the OT and Jesus is what?
The eternally unchanging God incarnates spatiotemporally into Jesus in His 2nd Person.
Oh, and just a bit of obvious logic: if your changing god was fundamentally different from Jesus a couple of thousand years B.C., then of course there is no reason whatsoever to assume that this god has not changed in the couple of thousand years A.D. to be fundamentally different from Jesus again.
You have no guarantee that Jesus and the NT are more in harmony with the god you face now than with the god we see in the OT. Club Marcion is an attempt to disown the past, but it automatically disowns the future as well. To put it most clearly, you fucked your revelation beyond repair.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Oh, and just a bit of obvious logic: if your changing god was fundamentally different from Jesus a couple of thousand years B.C., then of course there is no reason whatsoever to assume that this god has not changed in the couple of thousand years A.D. to be fundamentally different from Jesus again.
That kinda makes sense - except that the starting point is that God is actually like the person we see as Jesus Christ in the gospels. So if we're allowing that maybe God changed since, then we're saying that he changed away from being the loving, self-sacrificial man/God we see in Jesus and into something else - say a God who encourages genocide.
Doesn't it make more sense to believe that God is actually like Jesus Christ and that all those other experiences of God were like looking into a dirty mirror?
Maybe the God we see in Jesus makes more sense as a God to believe in because he is all-loving and self-sacrificial?
quote:
You have no guarantee that Jesus and the NT are more in harmony with the god you face now than with the god we see in the OT. Club Marcion is an attempt to disown the past, but it automatically disowns the future as well. To put it most clearly, you fucked your revelation beyond repair.
I'm not entirely sure this is "Club Marcion", but I'm pretty sure that this kind of belief has not automatically messed with revelation per say.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So - how many men, women and children would you kill to stop an idea like IS?
One less than IS has killed and will kill
It's good to see that "Kill them all. God will know his own" is still proper RC doctrine.
How does your position differ substantially (or even marginally) from that of IS? (Which, afaiui, is the point Martin's raising with the grandees of the CofE)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, the God of scripture and tradition doesn't always conform to cultural expectations.
You have no problem if God turns out to be a racist and for example the KKK are right and all us horrible anti-racist liberals are wrong?
I have this weird thing called a "consicence". It tells me some things are inherently wrong. Like racism. Like valuing members of one ethnic group over another. I could be wrong, but I could also be wrong that grass is green. I just can't imagine a universe in which it is.
The other option is to say my conscience cannot be relied on at all, so if God says it, apparently, then that's fine, and if he says to feed children through bean slicers I'd better get mine to the farm toot sweet.
[ 06. August 2015, 08:57: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Oh, and just a bit of obvious logic: if your changing god was fundamentally different from Jesus a couple of thousand years B.C., then of course there is no reason whatsoever to assume that this god has not changed in the couple of thousand years A.D. to be fundamentally different from Jesus again.
God is God is God, unchanging for all time.
But the way we perceive God changes all the time. The OT priests and prophets also perceived God differently from each other. Jesus changed everything - but our perceptions and interpretations of what he said also change. Fortunately Jesus' words are far clearer and more just than most of the OT, and can't be easily misinterpreted.
We have to do what we know is right, it is no use relying on any 'authority' to tell us. We are not children.
The religious and political authorities can get things very, very wrong - it is right and good to question them, then do what is right and good whatever they say. (No, I am not advocating law breaking unless the law is wrong, as it was in my childhood - then break it as much as you can and still keep safe from prison)
[ 06. August 2015, 09:10: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I attacked your ignorance, not you, dearest IngoB. Which you awesomely sustain. I'm really impressed.
[ 06. August 2015, 09:08: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
No, I am not advocating law breaking unless the law is wrong, as it was in my childhood - then break it as much as you can and still keep safe from prison)
Can I ask where you were a child? The usual Gandhian practice for breaking an unjust law is to break it in public and then face the full weight of an unjust law. What did you gain by breaking it in secret in such a way as to never get caught?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
<crosspost with Boogie and following>
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Doesn't it make more sense to believe that God is actually like Jesus Christ and that all those other experiences of God were like looking into a dirty mirror?
Perhaps. However, this position is not available to Martin60, since he maintains that god himself is changing (rather than that our perception of God is changing). Furthermore, he maintains that even what is revealed in the NT, indeed by Christ himself, has to be evaluated and critiqued from a silicon age point of view as an iron age take on God. In other words, even Jesus Himself, and most certainly His apostolic ghostwriters, were not a clean mirror, and he thinks progress since then has made the mirror image of God significantly cleaner. Such an "enlightened" view of revelation de facto destroys it.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Maybe the God we see in Jesus makes more sense as a God to believe in because he is all-loving and self-sacrificial?
Perhaps. But if we separate Jesus form the Jewish past in a way that appears clearly at odds with Jesus' own intentions (and those of his Jewish apostles), then we are necessarily compromising the revelation we have obtained through them. If this part of what they were on about is doubtful, then all other parts can be, too. Then you end up not hoping in what has been revealed, but with your hope determining what can count as revealed. At that point religion does become an exercise in wishful thinking.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not entirely sure this is "Club Marcion", but I'm pretty sure that this kind of belief has not automatically messed with revelation per say.
True, I'm doing Marcion an injustice there. It's Martin60's view of revelation that is fucked beyond repair, that of Marcion is merely fucked.
[ 06. August 2015, 09:20: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
NONE of them, no one, not Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Churchill, Truman or any who followed their orders and none from the pre-modern age, when they are saved, when their lives are redeemed, deconstructed, reconstructed, however that occurs, and it will, in the Resurrection, would do the abominable evils that they did again. Neither will I. Or IS.
Of course none of us will do those things ever again in the New Age, but you blithely overlook Jesus' commands to REPENT if we want to be part of His kingdom. I'm not going to bother with proof texts, because you know them already anyway.
quote:
Even Satan himself may find repentance. How could he not? I dread to think.
Jesus says otherwise. Feel free to ignore Him on that.
I don't accept the Miltonian image of Satan as some melancholy, almost noble, Prince of Darkness. The Dark Lord is a popular figure in fantasy fiction but the Bible's portrayal of Satan is more ambiguous and reticent, although he is undeniably portrayed as a personality. I like CS Lewis's portrayal of the devil as an evil entity adopting personality because it suits it to do so, as content with inanity as much as with big atrocities, and I think Lewis might be onto something there.
quote:
What are we 'guilty' of? Evolving? And YES being sapient, moral beings we MUST take full responsibility for our evil. Even though we are NOT responsible. At all.
We ARE guilty and we ARE responsible. For a lot of stuff. For our war-mongering. For what we're doing to the planet. Etc etc etc etc.
God is merciful, much more compassionate towards us than we are towards others and ourselves, and there is certainly ROOM for all. But there's the rub - some won't actually want that. (As you can tell, I'm no Calvinist.)
Pertinent that I should be writing this on the 70th anniversary of the dropping of the Hiroshima bomb. ![[Frown]](frown.gif) Never again. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
No, I am not advocating law breaking unless the law is wrong, as it was in my childhood - then break it as much as you can and still keep safe from prison)
Can I ask where you were a child? The usual Gandhian practice for breaking an unjust law is to break it in public and then face the full weight of an unjust law. What did you gain by breaking it in secret in such a way as to never get caught?
1960s South Africa. My Dad worked in Soweto and broke the racist laws whenever possible. He was stopped by the police many times but avoided arrest every time by lying through his teeth. He said that going to prison would help nobody. He wanted to continue working and, of course, protect his family.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I attacked your ignorance, not you, dearest IngoB. Which you awesomely sustain. I'm really impressed.
No, you are not attacking my ignorance, Martin60. You are attacking me personally, through an unsupported assertion that I'm ignorant (so unsupported in fact, that we cannot even tell what I'm supposed to be ignorant about). That sort of thing just is what one calls an "argumentum ad hominem", and you have just repeated it in the above.
But that's fine with me, really. You can maintain your rhetorical sniping and mantra-like ejaculations of "Jesus saves", I will just eviscerate the little that can be gleaned of your intellectual position and let you stew in your oh so enlightened position of having lost your faith and covering it up by nailing Christian vocabulary to a run-of-the-mill secular humanism.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
That's enough from both of you. To Hell or cool it.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
1960s South Africa. My Dad worked in Soweto and broke the racist laws whenever possible. He was stopped by the police many times but avoided arrest every time by lying through his teeth. He said that going to prison would help nobody. He wanted to continue working and, of course, protect his family.
And fair play to him for doing that.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
But my point remains. Blindly following authority, whether religious or political, is not a good idea. We need to come to our own conclusions - especially about matters of faith. Then, if we wish to worship with others, we choose the Church which is best for us.
Even then we don't need to agree with, or follow everything they say. The Bible, tradition, authority, call it what you will - should not come before our own conscience imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Sir.
IngoB and Beeswax Altar: who said what to whom when in Luke 3:14?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And chaps, let's assume that God is perfectly accurately portrayed throughout the entire Bible, from Alpha to Omega, as literally as possible. As Killer. Damner.
What difference does that make to the example we have to follow of Him in the Son of Man?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
IngoB and Beeswax Altar: who said what to whom when in Luke 3:14?
Fair enough, that is actually John the Baptist speaking, and you could claim that it is reported just FYI on JtB rather than as an attitude in any way directly relevant to Christians. It's not like JtB was preparing the way for the Lord or anything silly like that: JtB also talks there about practical charity for the poor, and we know that Christians take no interests in that at all. JtB also deals there with tax collectors as if they are not beyond the pale, and we know that Jesus would never do that. And so when JtB says something about soldiers, we can predict that it is meaningless in a Christian context and that Jesus or His apostles wouldn't touch a Roman centurion with a barge pole. These three thing are then not listed to show how JtB got the repentance part right in his call to baptism, even in difficult cases, merely lacking the ability to give the grace of the Holy Spirit. No, this entire passage is supposed to demonstrate just how corrupt the doctrine of JtB was, who leaped in his mother's womb for fear of the approaching Messiah.
That said, this actually does not change my main point at all, namely that by an orthodox understanding of the Incarnation and the Trinity, Jesus simply is personally responsible for the actions of the OT God.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There you see, you're not ignorant at all ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Your case is the dominant one, the traditional one. And, winking at your flesh tearing too, legalistically wooden. Progressive revelation obviously increased with JtB. Did it stop there?
So God the Killer as writ allows us in THAT example, but not Jesus, to emulate Him? 70 years plus 1 day ago?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
I think it is important to grasp the principle that God is writing human history like a human author writes a book. And I mean writing a story or perhaps more specifically a fable (with a moral point), not a book collecting case law. He does deal in individuals, but he very much also deals in the broader brushstrokes of history.
God commanded the genocide of the Amalekites. Therefore God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, must be able to command genocide. That is true, and if you theology cannot accommodate that, then your theology is factually wrong. It does however not follow that there is this standing option of God commanding genocide arbitrarily, and hence that we should be surprised if He doesn't. I'm not proposing a limit on God's omnipotence here (indeed God could command this). I'm saying that this makes no sense, in particular, it does not make the kind of sense God is actually trying to convey.
Compare this to a human author who writes something like: "And at the very moment when John triumphantly grabbed the car keys, Mrs Cobble of the fifth floor accidentally hit the flower pot with her elbow. It fell all the way down right onto John's head, killing him instantly. Jane who witnessed this, was too stunned for words - at least for a while, then she began screaming."
OK. Do you expect that Jane is under immediate threat of being killed as well by a falling flower pot? Should the paramedics look fearfully upwards all the time? Is the entire town under threat by a hailstorm of flowerpots? Will mankind go extinct by flowerpot strikes everywhere? For that matter, does the author motivate throwing flower pots onto people from great heights here? Is this a moral law that death by flower pot is perfectly fine? Do we need to discuss at length just under what conditions one may drop flower pots on people's heads? Is there moral science behind sending it off with your elbow rather than say bumping it loose with your butt? Do we need some serious flower-pot-ology here?
No, all that is pretty stupid. Whatever the author is going on about here - and to find out we would have read more of the story - the point of this vignette surely is not anything like that. That makes no sense, that is clearly not what the author is on about. If the author goes on to tell us about how Jane retires to the cloister, then perhaps this tells us something about the fleetingness of the world or post-traumatic stress disorder. If the author had told us that John was unjustly ripping off Mrs Cobble, and here was stealing her car, then maybe this is about karma and coming around what goes around. Whatever. At any rate, what all this means follows from the story context, it is implicit in what came before in the story and in what came after. What it does not do is to tell us that from now on we should expect the author to kill off one protagonist after the other with flower pots. Not because he couldn't, for most definitely he could. But because whatever the sense is that the author is trying to impart, that surely is not it.
I hope the analogy is clear. We cannot have a theology which claims that God cannot possibly end human lives through violence rather than through disease or old age. God can end all human lives as He sees fit. However, it does not therefore follow that God is constantly threatening everybody and his dog with genocide. That's just clearly not the point of what God is doing to the Amalekites, it just completely ignores the context of the ongoing narrative God is writing into history there.
However, some people may well still be shocked that God could emphasise some point He's making by spelling it out in history in innocent blood (which then later gets reflected in the ink of scripture). Well, fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Once more, we all die, and a good many of us in circumstances that are nasty. Often one hears the complaint that God allows sickness, injury and death to strike people at random, meaninglessly. Well, in the case of Amalek that conveyed a lot of meaning, and still people complain. God cannot really please us, other than by removing all sickness, injury and death. The good news is that He's working on that chapter...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think it is important to grasp the principle that God is writing human history like a human author writes a book.
That is the Calvinist party line, yes. It makes a mockery of free will, of course, and I am not prepared to accept your assertion.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think it is important to grasp the principle that God is writing human history like a human author writes a book.
As an actual human author, I can tell you this: We make shit up. The protagonists don't do what we want. The plot goes tits up after writing the words "Chapter One". Where we end up is never where we expected to end up.
If God is writing a book like that - then I'm happy. I'm guessing that's not what you mean or want to mean.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I was just reading a novel where the Greek gods on Olympus existed inside time, but it was a different kind of time to humanity.
One of the characters, a god, described it as being able to see all of human history unfolding in front of them like a scroll, and being able to engage with it at any time.
It seems to me that it is possible to imagine God changing only if he is trapped within the time we are within. So over time he too is learning from his mistakes and is also changing his views on stuff. On the other hand, if he actually is outside of time and is able to jump into any point in human history, then we're saying the God we experience is exactly the same God as the one experienced in the OT.
Of course, these illustrations are all pretty problematic in different ways.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Sir.
IngoB and Beeswax Altar: who said what to whom when in Luke 3:14?
I said it was John the Baptist and asked a series of questions you ignored. Your responses on this thread have consisted largely of pedantry and personal attacks. Both are examples of a weak argument. None of your posts address even the sayings of Jesus that contradict your view of Jesus. My suspicion is that any attempt to engage with those passages of scripture would include inserting extra details without justification and making those details more important than the actual text.
Every single atrocity done in the name of Jesus was done in service to a cultural Jesus. Every last one of them was convinced that their culture was the most advanced and enlightened the world had ever seen. All the rest were savages.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
God commanded the genocide of the Amalekites. Therefore God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, must be able to command genocide. That is true, and if you theology cannot accommodate that, then your theology is factually wrong.
If God commanded genocide then God is a bastard who should be spat upon and not worshipped.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
God commanded the genocide of the Amalekites. Therefore God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, must be able to command genocide. That is true, and if you theology cannot accommodate that, then your theology is factually wrong.
It isn't true.
The writers of the book thought/believed God had ordered them. He didn't. If he did he would be a God who sanctioned genocide - not even slightly the God of love Jesus showed us.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It wasn't Jesus IngoB.
Where does Jesus contradict John? Why would Luke who was trying to establish John as the forerunner of Jesus mention a teaching of John diametrically opposed to what Jesus taught? Was John a false prophet? The church does not recognize John as a false prophet. Marcion on the other hand...
So you did Beeswax Altar. My unqualified apologies.
Yes, Marcion was a heretic as he was a literalist and couldn't reconcile the demiurge of the OT, in whom he had no option but to believe, with God incarnate. Most understandable.
No postmodern could fall in to that heresy. Or those heresies should we say. The first heresy being literalism of the Bible as a flat cookbook.
How would Christian, i.e. Christ's pacifism be diametric to, contradict, John's sound advice to soldiers? John was at least the primus inter pares greatest man who ever lived according to Jesus. Who eclipsed him. As do all Christians.
Heresy is human which is why Jesus exemplified it and transcended it.
[ 06. August 2015, 17:33: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
I'm sorry, Martin. When I became an Episcopalian/Anglican, I was told that I wouldn't have to leave my brain at the door. Theological arguments based on circular reasoning require me to leave my brain at the door.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
All argument is circular.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Burn him!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
He's made a start.
This Roman Catholic goes all the way. back to Jesus.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
