»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Turning The Other Cheek
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Turning The Other Cheek |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
. Did in historical fact that actually work? I seem to remember Constantine and the battle of the Milvian Bridge is what got the Christians away from being in one way or another lion food. . |
||
| © Copyright 2007 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I am of the opinion that the advice found in the Bible is for personal spiritual growth, in our relationships with God and our neighbor, and isn't necessarily something that can or should be applied to the affairs of a government, whose primary responsibility is the protection of its people. But I also don't think the Bible instructs people, even on a personal level, to "turn the other cheek" when their life, or the life of someone else, is at stake. I think that would be taking a good spiritual principle to the extreme, in most cases. I say in most cases because I'm sure there have been people led by God to lay down their lives in certain situations by not resisting the evil coming against them. But I think that is a very personal decision between God and that person, not something that would apply in most situations. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Turn the other cheek or an eye for an eye....so many decisions. Every time I turn the other cheek I can't sit down for a week!  |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Worked for Ghandi. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Ghandi was shot dead . . . |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Denise: quote: This may be true. God gives the sword and the task of judgment to "The nations of the world", as something necessary under law. But it still raises the question of whether Çhristians (living in grace) can or should take part in such a responsibility. It seems to me that Christians are really summoned to a different and higher calling than bloodshed. I'm not saying that they should never be a part of Government; But perhaps there are certain roles of Government which are not really fitting for Christians. Lawful perhaps, but not expedient. I do know that David wasn't permitted to build the Temple because he had "blood on his hands", and was a "man of war". These acts of judgment were from the Lord too. But some callings require a separation from things tainted with judgment and sin. Protection, at the price of bloodshed, is a necessary evil, and a reluctant provision for this present age. One of the Old Testament prophets spoke of God's "strange work". I've always felt that these kinds of things fall in the category of that cryptic saying. The lightest feelings of war, carry an unmistakeable melancholy with them. I know there are things I've had to do because they "had to be done", and then there are the things that I've loved to do, because they are conformable to my truest heart. Or to put it another way, Moses (representing humanity under law) saw the "hinder parts of God" on the mountain. But in Christ we see the face of God unveiled. Some jobs may be fitting for one dispensation, but alien to another. Moses allowed certain provisions "because of hardness of heart". But Jesus always comes with "But I say to you ...", and changes things. Does that make any sense? quote: But this is exactly what the early Christian Martyrs did isn't it? Stephen, the Apostles, and the Christians who suffered persecution at the hands of certain Roman Emperors? I wonder what would have become of their witness / testimony had they taken up arms. Personally I suspect that when we try to moderate the shockingly pacifist things Jesus said, we are playing the revisionist. Don't get me wrong, I struggle with what he said too. Was he kidding?? "That's so impractical and idealist, and goody-two-shoes, and impossible, and ..." I can generate more objections than you probably. And yet, I think we were meant to struggle, since for me, beneath those objections is an ever present undercurrent of calm acknowledgment ... "No matter, you know he's right". I'm currently reading a book called "The Hard Sayings of Jesus" by F.F. Bruce. In the preface he says the following about his endeavor: "... I quickly found that the exposition of the hard sayings of Jesus is a difficult and responsible task; yet I am glad that I undertook it, for it has proved specially rewarding. His yoke is easy and his burden is light, but his sayings are often hard because they run counter to well-entrenched presuppositions and traditional assumptions about life and human relations. When they are hard for a reason, I hope I have not made them easier, for that would be to obscure their meaning ..." I guess to summarize, I think the spirit of Jesus presents to me, almost a reversal of what you said. Most situations should require an extreme mercy, and anything else, if at all, should be the exception. John: quote: Is it ever appropriate to say "blessed are the dead"? I think so. And while sometimes I'm sure I don't, I remind myself that I'm just too alive to embrace such a truth. Give it some time. Another way of stating this, is to say its better to die right than to live wrong. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Turn the other cheek" and be hit again? I don't think so. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess, Most of the time, to turn the other cheek brings conviction to the person who would strike. Ever tried to keep arguing with someone who is too happy and settled to argue back? The saying of Jesus is not merely an invitation to be abused, and not an act of cowardice. In its simplest interpretation, it means to resolve not to repay evil for evil. Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
It’s not surprising that turning the other cheek is confusing because like so many things in life it’s a philosophy that’s dependant on the situation and the judgement of the individual. In some cases turning the other cheek is the best choice, in others turning the other cheek is stupidity personified. This is compounded because it isn’t a simple choice between turning the other cheek and not turning the other cheek, it’s a choice between doing one specific thing (turning the other cheek) or selecting from a whole heap of alternatives. quote: This is a good example, it seems to be pretty solid evidence that turning the other cheek isn’t a good tactic. I think most people would agree that when faced with a drunken halfwit, out to impress the girls, turning the other cheek doesn't seem to be the best option. From experience I can tell you that there are only five main options worth considering if you‘re ever in this situation: A You negotiate (can’t we just talk about this?) B You get the heck out of dodge (live to fight another day) C You retaliate (eye for an eye) D You minimise the possible damage (assume the crash position) E You do nothing (turning the other cheek or the Ghandi defence) (These options aren’t mutually exclusive btw, sometimes a mixture works best, a hit and run isn’t always a bad thing). So is turning the other cheek a bad tactic in all situations, heck no! Ghandi in the same situation might take a shot on the chin in the hope that he can get some sympathy and support from the crowd and hopefully convince the halfwit that hitting a defenceless man isn’t going to impress anyone. It worked against the British in India. A He tried to negotiate B he had nowhere to run C He’d have lost a toe to toe fight D He raised his guard E And did nothing quote: Which sort of negated any choice, I think if Nathuram Godse had given him the option of a five minute start he’d have taken it. quote: I don’t see any of the options A-E above as evil Stephen, they’re just the only options available. "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Richard Dawkins |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
"Turning cheek" First, we are the ones who slapped others on everywhere again and again. Can't be a baby in dirty dipper screaming others to take a bath. Second, the teaching of Bible. None of them can be acted out without love. There are many sayings about the "turn cheek". But I take it as what was it. If I have real love, turning cheek should be a happy thing to do. If I have not, I slap other three times on the face. my thought |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Grinch says it best for me. Turn the other cheek is not some generic phrase to be applied to all cases. Each individual case has to be determined for what it is. When Gregory Peck was spat on by the farmer in "To Kill a Mockingbird", I wanted him to ball up his fist and knock the man's lights out. Instead He wiped the spittle off, looked at the man and walked away and it was a symbol of complete inner-strength on his part and was the perfect thing to do. You have to know the nature of what you are dealing with. Would it be wise to turn the other cheek to a person or group who has taken blood oaths to kill you, who would give their own lives to take yours? Go ahead if you want...you will simply wind up dead with nothing solved. In poker there is a saying "Never try to bluff a donkey"...in other words, actions and logic do not matter to someone too stupid to understand them. It's also true in everyday life. Ayn Rand said the worst thing she could ever imagine was to be locked in a cage with a wild animal who had no intellect or reasoning powers. Turning the other cheek is not to be a standard. Knowing your enemy is as is knowing when to apply it and when not to. Chrsitians should not participate in war, Stephanos? What was it again that God instructed them to do upon leaving the desert to the three towns they came upon?....and just think of all the fun they would have missed by not launching the Crusades? History is filled with atrocities committed by those same Christians you think should not take part in war. God, that entity who killed a city of first-borns does not sound very pacifistic to me. Putting blinders on does not make it different. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
"Grinch says it best for me. Turn the other cheek is not some generic phrase to be applied to all cases. Each individual case has to be determined for what it is." Both of you, Grinch and Sir Balladeer were right. It is not in the human nature. "When Gregory Peck was spat on by the farmer in "To Kill a Mockingbird", I wanted him to ball up his fist and knock the man's lights out. Instead He wiped the spittle off, looked at the man and walked away and it was a symbol of complete inner-strength on his part and was the perfect thing to do." This was not an example of "turn cheek". "You have to know the nature of what you are dealing with. Would it be wise to turn the other cheek to a person or group who has taken blood oaths to kill you, who would give their own lives to take yours? Go ahead if you want...you will simply wind up dead with nothing solved." "turn cheek" is not about death. It is about self-esteem and love. "Ayn Rand said the worst thing she could ever imagine was to be locked in a cage with a wild animal who had no intellect or reasoning powers." Why worst? self-interest made her in or not in with her best rationale.  (the words she chose: worst----what is best? caged in with a singing bird? Imagine---clear day hallucination wild---can wild be relevant to reasoning animal---can animal be related to intelligence? So let me translate her words The imagined worst thing within her intelligence to imagine was locked with a not-intelligent, not reasoning animal who who had no intellect or reasoning powers.  "Turning the other cheek is not to be a standard. Knowing your enemy is as is knowing when to apply it and when not to." It is not about enemy. It is about to love the unlovable. "Chrsitians should not participate in war, Stephanos?" No murder. "What was it again that God instructed them to do upon leaving the desert to the three towns they came upon?....and just think of all the fun they would have missed by not launching the Crusades? History is filled with atrocities committed by those same Christians you think should not take part in war. God, that entity who killed a city of first-borns does not sound very pacifistic to me. Putting blinders on does not make it different." God is God. Your best example, here I write for you, the Hell. You can always augur about Hell and God's love. My thought. [This message has been edited by TomMark (12-22-2007 08:40 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The biblical passage generally says "evil" and "whosever shall smite..." not "this specific kind of evil, evil that won't harm or threaten your life, etc". And says not to resist it, but allow oneself to be hit by it. I don't see how we may make this out as wise. It might as well say "stand on your head". What is the difference in effect? Meanwhile, everyday we greatly depend on ourselves and others to more or less degrees defending and standing up for our lives, rights and freedoms, in one way or another not turning the cheek and giving into evil, threats, harassment, etc. That doesn't mean we don't put up with some of it. Obviously, we must always put up with evil to some extent. But saying that is not the same as saying we should not resist the evil or not defend ourselves against it. Σοφος εν `εη ψυχη περιφερει `εα αγαθα "A wise man carries his goods in his soul" - Menander [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-22-2007 02:55 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I don't remember a lot from my childhood, but there's one incident that has stayed with me for over fifty years. The details are murky at best, but the feelings of confusion and frustration have never lost their power over me, even though I later came to realize the incident was one sooner or later shared by almost every kid in the world. I was probably about six years old, in First Grade I think, and my mom was called into the principal's office because I had been in a fight with another kid. I don't remember who the kids was, I don't remember what dirty name it was he called me, I don't even remember who won or lost, but I do very distinctly remember the sense of betrayal I felt when my mom rebuked me. As I sat on the hard bench outside the principal's office waiting for my mom to arrive, it never even occurred to me she might not take my side. I was in the right, I knew. He started the fight, not me. Mom would understand. What I got, of course, was the sticks-and-stones-may-break-my-bones speech. Ignore them, I was told. Being called a name, no matter how nasty or how insulting, doesn't justify hitting someone. Just walk away. Frankly, I didn't believe the adults back then, not even my mom, and it would take probably another three decades to realize they were actually spot on. It was a big deal to a six-year-old, and later an even bigger deal to a rebellious sixteen-year-old, but in the grand scheme of things being called a dirty name was never really all that important. Not one single bad name I've ever been called (and, trust me, there have been a few) has ever changed my life. I think one of the overriding themes that Jesus taught throughout his ministry was to not allow the insignificant to distract us from the significant. Too much immersion in this world will inevitably blind us to a much greater world. This is a lesson I think my Amish neighbors have perhaps learned better than most. Electricity isn't a sin to them, but television, radio, and the Internet are certainly diversions from a more spirtual pursuit. The Amish focus on what is important to them, often to the full excusion of what is not important. I can understand that. In the context of my fifty-seven years, being called a few names along the way turned out to not be very important to me. In the context of eternity? I don't know. Maybe Jesus was trying to tell us that being smacked up side the head, or even murdered, isn't going to seem quite so crucial down that much longer road? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That’s a worrying and possibly dangerous conclusion to draw Ron. I know it’s not your intention but it’s only a short hop away from the notion that this life isn’t worth fighting for, or even worse living. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I have to agree, grinch. If being murdered is not that crucial in this lifetime, then what is? Looking for that road way up ahead can cause one to stumble on the road he is on by not paying attention... ....and, if the GPS lied, and the road doesn't exist,what then? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: It's a very short hop, indeed, Grinch. And not one entirely without potential merit, I think. quote: That, however, is a MUCH bigger leap. There's a huge difference between saying that life has no worth and saying one particular life is necessarily worth more than another's life. There are arguments to be made for the latter, I think, but none of those arguments speak to the former. Look at it a bit differently. Is there absolutely nothing you wouldn't be willing to sacrifice to preserve your own life? If you can answer yes to that question, we don't have much left to discuss. If your answer is no, however, then your only quibble is over what might be sacrificed and what won't. If someone is trying to kill you does that automatically make their life less valuable than yours? While that's certainly a very understandable (and predictable) reaction, I'm not entirely sure it's always a justifiable one. The bottom line, to my way of thinking, is that life definitely has value. Immense value. If we allow it to become the most valuable, however, we paradoxically cheapen it. When there is nothing more important than living, living has little meaning. quote: My whole point, Mike, was that that has to work both ways. If all you ever look at is the road you're on you'll never even see the road ahead. It's not a road that can be found without looking for it. The question everyone must ask and answer for themselves is simple: Which road is most important? |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
My dear sir balladeer, you can't be more right this time. If GPS lied, the road would still be there. Which satellite are you using? Rand?(hope you have dinner tonight). One can't find San Francisco on Map of New York.(wrong guide!) Murder....It is not what one ask for. It is a crime against anybody. God does not want anyone to die in murder. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: That's because you're not being specific enough. Relatiation may involve hacking someone's liver out, for a previous wrong done. Even the categories of your list does not preclude the possibility of evil. I know you have chosen philosophically not to recognize moral evil (though I doubt you are able to do so practically speaking). It's still safe to say that since most people do recognize it, the words of Jesus apply. quote: Yes, there is that possibility of taking what Ron was saying too far. But that's no reason not to recognize its truth. If there is more to life than this-worldiness, then it would stand to reason that there are greater things at stake. Only if this mortal life were everything, would this view be dangerous. But if that were granted, even that danger would fade in significance, when one considers that irreversible death, as a leveler, would make all such ideals trivial ... whether they be religious, or secular. So the question concerning the value of life, would only become more profoundly doubtful. quote: If you can only live by treachery, then its better to die. That's my point, and I think it might be what Ron is hinting at as well. Mike: quote: What are you referring to? Are you sure this describes anything in the New Testament, or as regarding Christians? quote: My point exactly. By calling them atrocities, you see the problem. By the use of that word, you implicitly agree with my "should". quote: A holy, eternal, and righteous being knows how to wield death, especially the kinds of death we bring upon ourselves (wasn't Pharaoh charismatically warned?). I never said that God doesn't reserve the right to take human life. (Every one of us will die, and God is not uninvolved) I merely state that Christians who profess to live in the Grace of Christ, should take issue with the discrepancy if they fall too easily into roles which mete out death and judgment. And you do slur together the Old Testament and New Testament enough to miss the antithesis between them ... that one is a dispensation of untempered justice, while the other is a dispensation of mercy. And while these are not watertight categories, they do describe the overall spirit of each. Stephen |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The question everyone must ask and answer for themselves is simple: Which road is most important? Another question, equally important, is which road exists? Another question is...doesn't the way you travel down your road dictate the passability of the other road? Was Ponce De Leon's life wasted then? If someone tries to murder me, does their life become less important to me? Oh, yes..... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Ron, My hop was in a slightly different direction. quote: When I read this it sounded like an advertisement for the afterlife, the implication being that it doesn’t matter what happens to you in this life because something bigger and better is waiting further down the road. Being an atheist the argument doesn’t really affect me, to me being dead doesn’t seem like a good alternative to living. There are people however who will believe in an afterlife and aren’t totally enamoured with their lot in this one. Telling them that at some point down the road their life won’t seem all that important, even to the point where being murdered isn’t crucial, could be construed as giving them one more reason to get to that better place that much quicker. Measuring the worth of your life against the life of another is a judgment call that could go either way. Measuring the worth of your life against the possibility of something better down the road could seem, at least to some people, to be the answer to all their problems. That’s the worry and the danger I was talking about. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If you can only live by treachery, then its better to die. Sorry, but I don't understand the "only live by treachery' part of that. Is that the only alternative? Yes, you are right, of course. I do mix in the old with the new testament. The Bible classes my girl conducts also study the Old one, too, along with the new. I assume that the phrase "Like father, like son" doesn't apply to the Bible then  As far as the pharoah goes, please don't get me started. None of it was necessary. God toyed with him and inflicted heavy damage and death to many innocents in the process. Is that something that's supposed to be admired? |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Sir Balladeer, "many innocents"? Who said that they were innocent? Everybody think that Johna was innocent, but he was not in God's eyes. Are we all innocent people? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: C You retaliate (eye for an eye) The example of a bar brawl I gave Stephen precludes premeditation, anything that stops someone cutting out your liver in a bar brawl doesn’t constitute an act of evil in my book, it‘s just an act of self-defence. quote: There’s so much wrong with this I don’t know where to start. Try reading this: I know you have chosen philosophically to recognize a christian god (though I doubt you are able to do so practically speaking). It's still safe to say that since most people do not recognize him, the words of Jesus don’t apply. I’m guessing that you don’t think you have a choice because you don’t see a valid alternative - there is in effect no choice to make. The suggestion that you can’t believe in God probably sounds a little condescending, if you couldn’t practically believe in god then believing in him would make you an idiot, right? The argument that most people don’t believe in god therefore god can’t exist is a simple fallacy, it doesn’t matter how many people believe or disbelieve that something exists, it either does or doesn’t. That means that the proposition that the words of Jesus don’t apply is based on a false argument and so isn’t proved. Do you want to reword your statement Stephen or do you want me to blow more holes in the existing one? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I certainly hope not, Mike, because the Old Testament makes it pretty clear we're not being graded on a curve. This is a pass/fail class, and no one knows how to pass. That doesn't mean the way you travel down your road doesn't matter, of course. It does, in the same sense, I think, that treating your family right matters. You don't hug your kids in hopes you'll get something out of it later. You hug them because you love them. I don't believe the way you travel down your road will get you something later. I think it will get you something now, and that's pretty important, too. quote: I don't think that's the implication at all, Grinch, any more than I suspect you believe atheism implies hedonism. Personally, I believe that what happens to you in this life probably isn't going to matter a year from now, let alone an eternity from now. Someone smacked you? You'll get over it. One way or another, you'll get over it. What happens to you, at worst, means making adjustments. Even death is just an adjustment, one with relatively minor impact on the world around you. What you do, however, defines your life. Getting hit can't change who you are. Hitting someone can. Being killed won't change who you were. Killing someone will. I don't think turning the other cheek implies a lessening of human life, but rather a fulfillment of human life. It's a recognition that pain and persecution and even death are just byproducts of life, not the reasons for life. Ultimately, they don't matter. To be honest, pacifism has always been well beyond my reach. Hit me and I'll probably hit you back. But I think I understand pacifism and I'd like to believe I respect it. When push comes to shove, it makes a whole lot more sense than the alternatives. Historically, those don't seem to have worked real well. More succinctly, and perhaps to directly answer John's original question, no, turning the other cheek doesn't work . . . if your most important goal is to avoid being hit. I don't think that was Jesus's most important goal, though. And, I don't think He wanted it to be ours, either. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: But even here you make the distinction between a more passive self defense, and a premeditated act of vengeance. You've conceded my point by recognizing the difference ... because vindictive retribution is still an option. quote: But most people do recognize him, and consider him to be good and wise. Whether or not they recognize him as the Son of God is another question. (though those familiar with the Bible recognize the difficulty of Jesus as a mere sage) But either way, since Christianity has so much to do with morality and human choices, people of all kinds have found his words (more or less) applicable to life. I'm not however conceding that your statement is comparable (really) to the one I made. The fact that you don't believe in moral evil places you in a real minority, among both religious and non-religious people. Whereas I might question whether the non-religious can give account for the moral categories that they hold, there is little question that most people think that moral blame or virtue is a real possibility. quote: I think I'll just turn the other cheek.  Admittedly, it was less of an argument, than a statement that you, by denying moral evil, are in the margin. And so perhaps I would change my statement by adding "to them, and not to you", if I didn't suspect that you recognize more of moral evil than your philosophy allows. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Mike: quote: Of course not. But neither does "turn the other cheek" invariably mean to be run over. It may also be viewed as an offensive defense, if that makes sense. hmmmm ... or maybe a non-offensive offense? The mention of death simply concedes that this thread of truth may run all through life, in the big decisions and the small. I don't doubt that there are dying situations which demand such choices of doing what's right. But of course these situations are going to be exceptional. quote: Can you rightly say that the Old Testament is devoid of the Son, and the New Testament without "The Father"? I think the division is better along dispensational lines. Humanity needed to see what a bright and terrible thing justice was, before the more congenial glow of mercy could come in fullness, and be appreciated for what it is. That doesn't mean there is no mercy in the Old Testament, and no justice in the New. Though God doesn't change, his approach has, because we do. quote: Too bad you weren't around to tell God what was necessary. You can look at it in a number of ways. But I would be slow to interpret it in such a way, seeing that many opportunities were given to Pharaoh (a man who was building his own kingdom on the backs and blood of slaves) to change and turn around. God turned up the heat, no doubt, but he didn't start with an all consuming fire ... just a burning bush. So there is mercy and patience even here. But you're right, the aspect of God's stern justice, is more to be feared than admired. The New Testament however reminds us that there is much more to be seen than God's anger ... thanks to someone who endured it on our behalf. And that is something worthy of admiration. Stephen |
||
|
Larry C
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286United States |
I know I'm late to the dialogue but I want to interject that if, in anyway, our length of life some how is a measure of success than the fact the Jesus died so young would be a negative. My daughter died at 28. There are worse things than dying. Really. If tears could build a stairway and memories a lane, I'd walk right up to heaven and bring you home again. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Me: quote: Chris: quote: Me: quote: Hush: quote: /pip/Forum6/HTML/000996.html#10 Some other reading around the www http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jesus+turn+other+cheek+back+hand+open+hand+ equal+defiance Particularly Wink's exposition: http://www.cres.org/star/_wink.htm |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Ron, I still don’t think we’re hopping in the same direction, I’ll try once more and cut out the bush beating. Your statements seem to offer an incentive to anyone of a suicidal nature. If someone is told that something better is down the road and that their death is inconsequential, that even their murder won’t be seen as crucial then suicide starts to look like a very viable option. quote: Somewhere a pubescent Goth is probably chanting the same mantra as he hitches the noose to the nearest tree. I understand what you mean Larry, sometimes living seems like the dirty end of the stick but if your daughter was a pubescent Goth would you be saying the same thing? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Stephen, quote: That’s an invalid argument Stephen as I pointed out it doesn’t matter how many people believe in god it doesn‘t prove his existence one way or the other. It definitely isn’t proof that the words of Jesus apply. God does not exist because lots of people don’t believe in him Therefore the words of Jesus do not apply God does exist because lots of people believe in him Therefore the words of Jesus apply It's still safe to say that since most people do recognize it, the words of Jesus apply. All three statements are based on invalid arguments. quote: Your statement is as wrong as the statement I made and for all the same reasons. It’s odd though that we can both recognise my example as wrong while you insist yours is right when the arguments are exactly the same. quote: The fact that you don’t understand my stance on moral evil places you in a weak position from which to draw conclusions. For the record here’s my thoughts on moral codes and evil: A single and universal moral code does not exist Nobody has ever committed an act they recognise at the time to be evil Evil is subjective not objective and does not exist as an independent entity |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
the Old Testament makes it pretty clear we're not being graded on a curve. This is a pass/fail class, and no one knows how to pass. hmmm...well, I'm not aware of where the Old Testament makes that clear but I certainly know how one passes. I've heard it enough times. All one has to do is accept Jesus Christ as one's savior...that's it. The murderer and the the pious man who never hurt a soul are equal in heaven by that one simple rule. Actually, I guess that supports your point that there is no curve. Close your mind and scream out "I believe!" and the pearly gates swing wide....such a deal. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Grinch, "A single and universal moral code does not exist Nobody has ever committed an act they recognize at the time to be evil Evil is subjective not objective and does not exist as an independent entity" You are totally wrong!!!!! absolutely wrong!!!!!!!!You are talking nonsense because if you open your eyes wide enough to watch the world and people around you, you will have another view. If you are too young to have a decent life experience to drew any proper conclusion Then there are many history book you can read. And you might have found something worth thinking among those great philosophers. How pathetic of them to have pondered all their lives for a logic meaning of human but died with dead mind. It is like holding on a thin branch and then, dropped. Grinch, you know that I am talking nonsense here Just to make you Angry  [This message has been edited by TomMark (12-24-2007 11:47 AM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Nicely constructed argument, have a nice thread and a happy new year. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: An argument which states that Jesus words are applicable because most people believe in evil, would not be refuted by your subjectivism. Because according to you ALL moral questions fall into the category of the subjective. But again, I wasn't appealing to numbers as an absolute proof of anything, just a provocative observation. quote: But they're not exactly the same, and I explained why above. Two syllogisms may be exactly the same in every way, and yet one may be wrong if the premise is wrong. "Most people believe in moral evil" is a much truer statement than "Most people do not recognize Jesus". I'm not saying you have to agree with me here ... I'm just explaining to you how two similar arguments are not bound to be right or wrong together, based upon their logical form. The correctness of premises and propositions is also determinate of whether an argument is sound. quote: I think I do understand your stance on moral evil. But, if you're suggesting that I'm ill fitted to draw conclusions because I don't agree with you, then no one should discuss anything about which they don't agree. Hey Grinch, I almost forgot to ask ... How's the plan to steal Christmas coming along? Stephen |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Ha, ha ha ha, (see how I got you!!!!, Grinch) Grinch, you are a gentleman. I intentionally tease you into anger to let you know that If there were not common code of moral, we could not carry a single conversation because as bad as myself, i just could say something worse or if I could, I would jail you for different opinions. Love ya and I was the one who was talking nonsense. TM |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch, I almost forgot to mention that my "applicability" statement, and an argument for "existence" is not the same argument at all. Whether something exists, or whether something is applicable or relevant, is bound to be argued differently. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: I know you addressed this to Ron. Forgive my intrusion, if you see it as such. But aren't you forgetting the whole structure of thought upon which the religious view is built, which negates the impetus of suicide? First of all, it has never been a Christian idea that the next life is Good, and this one is all bad. The world-to-come gives meaning to this life, in addition to putting things into perspective. Secondly, there is the strongest moral disapprobation of suicide in the Christain worldview (though this doesn't rule out sympathy or compassion). This is because life is viewed as sacred. But because it is sacred, it is contingent. And because it is contigent, there is more to be considered. Chesterton explained it very well in his book "Orthodoxy": "Let us follow for a moment the clue of the martyr and the suicide; and take the case of courage. No quality has ever so much addled the brains and tangled the definitions of merely rational sages. Courage is almost a contradiction in terms. It means a strong desire to live taking the form of a readiness to die. "He that will lose his life, the same shall save it," is not a piece of mysticism for saints and heroes. It is a piece of everyday advice for sailors or mountaineers. It might be printed in an Alpine guide or a drill book. This paradox is the whole principle of courage; even of quite earthly or quite brutal courage. A man cut off by the sea may save his life if he will risk it on the precipice. He can only get away from death by continually stepping within an inch of it. A soldier surrounded by enemies, if he is to cut his way out, needs to combine a strong desire for living with a strange carelessness about dying. He must not merely cling to life, for then he will be a coward, and will not escape. He must not merely wait for death, for then he will be a suicide, and will not escape. He must seek his life in a spirit of furious indifference to it; he must desire life like water and yet drink death like wine. No philosopher, I fancy, has ever expressed this romantic riddle with adequate lucidity, and I certainly have not done so. But Christianity has done more: it has marked the limits of it in the awful graves of the suicide and the hero, showing the distance between him who dies for the sake of living and him who dies for the sake of dying." Sometimes things which are vastly different will appear superficially the same. Though I do concede that the encouragements to recognize something greater than this life, may be used by some as excuses to reject life altogether. But considering the edifice upon which such advice hangs, I think this would be very rare. Even so, the best things in life involve the risk of misuse don't they? Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Mike: quote: Why would forgiveness and a change of heart require you to "close your mind"? More like "change your mind". But I guess that's your way of saying it seems unreasonable to let murderers and theives into heaven, and let respectable people go to hell. But two considerations might make this not as unreasonable as you make it out to be ... 1) The most respectable people are not righteous, hiding things inside, not even living up to their own standards. and 2) The Bible does not teach that wicked people will be in heaven, but that outward repentance is a necessary fruit of salvation. Seeing it this way may allow someone hope no matter what they've done, and yet give caution to someone no matter how good they think they've been. But its never been an open door policy for sin, because to say "I believe" entails much more than intellectual assent. Surely your church doesn't teach "Do anything you want and Jesus will forgive you"? And that's not a slap on the cheek ... Just something to consider. Stephen |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
My church DOES teach that salvation comes to all who accept Jesus Christ as their Savior....as I believe all of Christianity does. The murderer on death row can go to heaven upon his execution if he accepts Him and, apparently will have as many rights as a Pope, unless there is a heirarchy in heaven. My response was to Ron's comment that we don't know how to pass the test. THAT seems to be the test. Why close one's mind? Because one cannot use logic and reason to explain the Bible's definition of Heaven, therefore those avenues must be disregarded and replaced by blind belief. Why the stand against suicide? That's easy enough. The church DOES paint heaven as a place free of pain and trouble where believers can live out eternity in peace and even be reunited with loved ones. Well, then, with a place like that waiting, why would many NOT want to leave this world behind to get there? The church HAD to make suicide against the rules to eliminate that avenue. I do wonder, though, if a person sincerely accepted Jesus as his savior and still committed suicide, what then? Would he get in or not? I'll have to ask the pastor that one.... |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
oh, Sir balladeer, you have a church? I think your church is outside your church.' How interesting to know. "My church DOES teach that salvation comes to all who accept Jesus Christ as their Savior....as I believe all of Christianity does." Why Jesus is significant here? Savior of what? why we need savior if we all live such happy life? No, we don't need. It is the soul crying to go back home. "Why close one's mind? Because one cannot use logic and reason to explain the Bible's definition of Heaven, therefore those avenues must be disregarded and replaced by blind belief." You'd better let Sir Ron explain pip again and again to you to get a rough idea. But be aware that Sir Ron is not God. You are an angel here, aren't you? "Why the stand against suicide?" It is murder. "I do wonder, though, if a person sincerely accepted Jesus as his savior and still committed suicide, what then? Would he get in or not? I'll have to ask the pastor that one...." Sincerely...yes. but is he sincere all the time? Evil like roaring lion looking for the spiritually weak mind. That is why YOU have to go to church once a week, fellowship twice a week, read Bible daily, and think God's words all the time. Seriously one shall do this. I spend too much time on PIP if not on my bad poem. [This message has been edited by TomMark (12-23-2007 08:49 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Mike, that sounds like the kind of logic a stalker might pursue. "If I sincerely loved you, would you love me back even if I killed you?" We both know, of course, that the stalker has confused obsession with love. If he really loved his target the question would never need arise. Accepting Christ isn't a ploy, Mike, and it shouldn't be confused with something it's not. It's a relationship and, like any relationship built on mutual love, it's probably going to have its ups and downs. It takes work, just as any relationship does. A big part of a healthy relationship, I think, is not doing anything to intentionally hurt the one you love. For example, my mom didn't like casual swearing. Out of love and respect for her, I tried really hard to not swear in her house. If I slipped it didn't mean she stopped loving me or immediately kicked me out of her life. It just meant I felt bad for letting her down again. I didn't much like letting her down. I honestly don't think it's any more complicated than that. BTW, Mike, the test I mentioned is delineated in the Ten Commandments and requires one hundred percent compliance. Jesus isn't the way to pass that test, though. It's more like you have to let him take it for you. But, then, I suspect you knew all that. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Darn it, Ron, I hate to lower your opinion of my mental capabilities but I did NOT know that. The ten commandments are rules that everyone is supposed to try to follow but that no one can. They are not the test to get into heaven, else heaven would be devoid of anyone, since no one would be qualified. I repeat...the test is accepting Jesus Christ. You can fracture every commandment (including the other ten that Mel Brooks dropped) and still travel down that faraway road if you accept HIM. According to the Bible Jesus DID take the test for you and, if you accept that - and HIM - you're in. The flip side to that is that, even if you live your life in the best way you can, without violating the rights of anyone, and you do NOT accept HIM as your savior...it's sorry, Charlie. I have difficulty trusting an organization with rules like that. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Mike: quote: Not at all. There is of course much that has to accepted on authority, but what is accepted is not antithetical to reason. The reward of righteousness, and the punishment of sin, are both reasonable concepts. If you're talking about rationalistic proof then no, logic and reason cannot prove anything. Can logic and reason prove that love and hate exist, or even define them? And yet, their existence is not contrary to reason or logic. So if you're trying to imply that having religious faith means you must reject logic and reason, I think you're being unreasonable. quote: But surely your church also teaches that repentance and good works are the necessary fruits of receiving that salvation, right? The reason I'm asking, is that earlier, you seemed to describe (as a reductio ad absurdum) Heaven being filled with the wicked, and hell with decent people. I'm just addressing that caricature, and proposing that it is not Biblical. Sure the Bible says anyone may come, but in coming they must subsequently change in significant ways. "Faith without works is dead". quote: "without violating the rights of anyone". That's funny. Not only does the Bible teach this is as fanciful, our experience does too, if we're honest with ourselves. We can't live up to our own standards, much less God's. And neither does the Bible teach "do anything despicable you want ... then get in free". It does teach, "If you've done what is despicable, there is still hope for you". There's a difference. And the latter does not necessitate the former. What you are describing is libertinism or anti-nomianism. And there's plenty of scriptural weight against that interpretation. quote: You should read "The Great Divorce". In it Lewis helps us realize that Heaven is no escapist resort, but a place unbearable for those who are not made fit to be there. In the book he describes a bus ride to eternity, and upon investigating the place called Heaven, many of them find various reasons for turning back and not going. There, everything is more real, defined, sharp, and demanding. These curious visitors find themselves like half naked ghosts, barely able to walk in such a beautifully terrible place without pain, challenge, and difficulty. The beings who already dwell there assure them that these setbacks are temporary, and that in trusting and obeying the Lord of that country, they will be made more able to dwell there. Still, many of them think that the easier path of short-term comfort is better than the humbling path of discipleship, and get back on the bus taking them back to the shadowlands. The reason I bring this up, is to suggest that suicide could never rightly be seen as a path to the piercing light of Heaven. If one rejects light here, how can one receive the light there? If one does not respect life now, then how then? If one abandons hope in the flatlands, how will one retain it in the mountainous terrain? In light of what the Bible really says about the life to come, its hard to reasonably think that the denunciation of suicide by the Church was contrived as an antidote to desiring Heaven too much. It makes more sense to take the Christian view of life as a whole (that it is sacred because it is a gift), as the explanation for why suicide was so opposed, and martyrdom understood. Stephen |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Stephan. Wikipedia describes The Great divorce as a work of fantasy by C.S. Lawrence. THAT is what you are referring to me to prove your point? You are suggesting that a fantasy helps prove your definition of reality? Shall I refer to Superman to bolster my contention that there are men out there who can fly? Hw does not "help us realize" anything. He writes of the fantasy he creates in the book. C.S. Lewis is a great writer with an equally great imagination, shared by many who propound their own views of how Heaven works. That does not make their views accurate. Btw, I challenge you to show anywhere I claimed that heaven was filled with the wicked and hell with the decent. There is a world of difference between saying that a murderer can get into heaven and heaven being filled with the wicked. The overexaggeration is unfounded here, I believe. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
C.S. Lewis, not Lawrence. Fantasy or not, it communicates something in a provacative way, that the Bible also communicates ... that Heaven is not about laxity and escapism, but about fullest life, strenuous and real. quote: No it doesn't. What makes Lewis' views accurate, is that it comports with what scripture says about Heaven, much better than the "disembodied" view of Heaven. I never said it is true merely because Lewis wrote it. I did suggest you read it and see what you think about it. It is not offered to you as a proof of Christian truth about Heaven, but as a very lucid communication of it. quote: Lewis is well known for writing Christian allegory, which means that he uses the art of fictional prose to convey Christian truths. Just as Orwell's "Animal Farm" was a critique of communism, so also "The Great Divorce" is a communicator of concepts beyond its own plot line. Neither should be called pure fantasy ... probably more along the lines of "fictional commentary". If you don't think fictional writing can communicate anything true, or beyond itself, why do you write poetry? I'm not saying that you have to write poetry about anything more important than the color of your underwear. But I think you'll concede the point that you could if you wished. quote: Okay then, so all you're saying is that a murderer can be redeemed (which means to trust Christ and repent) and have Eternal Life. Where's the criticism in this? Stephen |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
What makes Lewis' views accurate, is that it comports with what scripture says about Heaven Stephen, it doesn't make them accurate. It simply makes them in line with the scriptures. which means that he uses the art of fictional prose to convey Christian truths Actually, I think that Christian beliefs would be more accurate. If you don't think fictional writing can communicate anything true, or beyond itself, why do you write poetry? Good point. Fictional writing can indeed use something factual as it's base on which it expounds.....or it may not. I may write a poem about aliens landing from outer space. That doesn't mean they did,even though there is belief that Earth is inhabited with extra-terrestrial beings. Stephan, you care calling a work of fiction accurate because it conforms to the teachings you believe, even though it was presented as, and is recognized as, a work of fiction. The greatest description of hell I have ever seen is in the movie "What Dreams May Come". If there is a hell, that's exactly how I would imagine it and it is also based on the view of what many people imagine hell to be, I believe. That doesn't make it so. Okay then, so all you're saying is that a murderer can be redeemed (which means to trust Christ and repent) and have Eternal Life. Where's the criticism in this? I did not present that as criticism (although I could) but as proof that the doorway to the Christian heaven opens only when Christ is accepted as one's savior and there is no difference between even murderers and popes when that requirement is met. Truthfully, I would like to see a man roast in hell for murdering my daughter instead of being told he found a place in heaven by accepting Christ before he was executed. I realize that's not very Christian of me but we are what we are. Merry Christmas to you and yours, Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Mike, first of all, I return your "Merry Christmas". Just because we don't see eye to eye, doesn't mean that we can't enjoy goodwill! But I would like to address a couple of other points before we go into Christmas hibernation. (I'll be out of town a few days) quote: If you'll look back, I was simply responding to your protest of using a fictional work to communicate something. That communication was in a larger context of argument I have been making all along, which was to argue that what scripture says about Heaven and Hell is not unreasonable (or unjust) and worthy of more consideration by you. quote: Its status of fiction doesn't make it altogether untrue either. And that was my point. I haven't seen "What Dreams ...". And for that reason I'm unable to comment on it. But since you've never read "The Great Divorce", maybe you should give it a read before you dismiss it as altogether unreasonable. quote: It seems you are viewing this as a mere formality (like presenting a ticket) instead of a spiritual transformation. The doctrine of regeneration, or re-birth, is important in relation to salvation. Because the redeemed in the New Testament are not described as murderers, thieves, and adulterers any longer. Not that they are perfected in a moment, but the Bible seems to indicate the possibility of a real change of heart. How much of that change takes place here and now, is debated, but the change is still part of redemption. quote: I'm not trying to be insensitive to anyone, but have you explored the idea that wishing someone to hell may be at least as bad as murder? We are what we are, but does that make it right? I promise, you and I and murderers alike will want mercy on that day. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Nor can there be, Mike, in a fully binary system. It's pass/fail, remember. By themselves, both the murderer and the pope have failed. There is no "more" failed or "almost" succeeded. It's just failed. It makes more sense, at least to me, when I stop thinking of heaven and hell in terms of reward and punishment. Instead, imagine the greatest love you've ever known and think of heaven as acceptance and hell as rejection. "I want to be with you forever," your greatest love says. That is heaven, even here on this mortal coil. "Get out! Leave me alone," your greatest love says. Anyone who has faced that ultimate pain knows something of Hell, I suspect. And, yea, acceptance/rejection is a necessarily binary condition. "Let's just be friends" was never really an option. Is rejection fair? Let's flip the perspective a bit. How much betrayal are you willing to accept from the one you love before you put her aside? Can she sleep with one man? Is ten too many? Can she sleep with other men as long as she doesn't get pregnant? Where would you personally draw the line between acceptance and rejection? Honestly, I don't see any way to make it not a binary condition. Want to make it both more and less complicated? Imagine that your prenup specifically spelled out what constituted cheating and what would happen if your new wife did it. And imagine, further, that you always do exactly what you say you're going to do. In this instance, the line is already drawn and it becomes less a matter of forgiveness than one of justice. You must keep your word. The Bible, I think, will always ultimately make sense. It doesn't even require belief. Either we are a reflection of God or God is a reflection of us, and in either case understanding, however partial, is attainable. We can condemn the acceptance/rejection motif of Christianity, perhaps, but with every single one of us doing it in our own lives, I think it's a bit hard to claim we can't understand it. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron, Your Christian apologetic is always different than mine, but I find it insightful. But is it possible that the "punishment / reward" and the "acceptance / rejection" paradigms are not necessarily contrary, just different descriptions of the same? Stephen |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Sir Balladeer "Darn it, Ron, I hate to lower your opinion of my mental capabilities" See, you don't want Ron to have bad opinion on you. There are two important meanings here. 1. Why Ron? why not me? because you view Ron as a fair , intelligent person (I am too, you know ). Why can't you have such a view on God? because you do not know Him.2. It is Ron after all who blocks your view! "accepting Jesus Christ." How do you understand "accepting Jesus"? There is not space in God's world for hypercritical talking on this issue. It is spiritual and its fruit.. "The flip side to that is that, even if you live your life in the best way you can, without violating the rights of anyone, and you do NOT accept HIM as your savior...it's sorry, Charlie. I have difficulty trusting an organization with rules like that." Best way......your own definition. and you cheated out a true friendship, ya know.[This message has been edited by TomMark (12-24-2007 05:36 PM).] |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
----------------- But is it possible that the "punishment / reward" and the "acceptance / rejection" paradigms are not necessarily contrary, just different descriptions of the same? ------------------ This is very important because it is related to God's characters. My thought "punishment / reward" yes, but Adam/Eve/Cain/Moses/David/ all got punishment from God but they were not the final judgment. while "acceptance / rejection" is the essence of the faith--in terms of God-human relationship. I agree with what Sit Ron said. PS, Sir Ron, I love to read the stories about your mom and how she has disciplined you. I learned something from them. Who knows if you still need to be monitored?! |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
TomMark, You add levity to any discussion. Stephen |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
I would just like to say I think this thread is absolutely fascinating, and I think everyone has had interesting things to say. Too bad I got back so late. To return to my example of Ghandi- Yes, he was shot dead. Do you think that mattered to him? He was a man who valued justice over his own life and livelihood- hence the hunger strikes. Just as Ron's interpretation of Jesus shows that not getting hit was never the end goal, Ghandi's end goal never had anything to do with his own well being. He attained his goals not through (physical and emotional) self-fulfillment, but by elevating himself above what he viewed as evils of the world- violence, selfishness, and the occupation of his homeland. 'E You do nothing (turning the other cheek or the Ghandi defence)' Turning the other cheek is absolutely not an example of doing nothing. (Thanks Reb, for the interjection). Going on a hunger strike in defiance of an occupying power is an extremely powerful action, not an inaction. Turning the other cheeck is a conscious decision. I'm thinking of a Mark Strand poem: "In a field, I am the absence of field." And of an Ani DiFranco song: "When you hear me singing, listen to what I'm not saying When you hear me playing guitar, listen to what I'm not playing Don't ask me to put words to all the silences I wrote Don't ask me to explain all the silences between notes" Meaning? I guess, that what you see as inaction may very well, to me, be action. Roosevelt said to walk softly, but to carry a big stick... walking softly is also an action. And there is the option to walk soflty, and without the stick. The point being, laying down the stick is not necessarily a surrender. And that, to me, is the essence, or the idea, of God. A love so great that, as Ron pointed out, one can transcend the human tendency to react, to rebuke, to fight fire with fire or take an eye for an eye. To take a common saying- killing them with kindness. But the idea is not to kill your enemy, but to kill their agression with tactics other than those they are using. And, as I said before- it worked for Ghandi. Now, let's be realistic- I am not Jesus Christ, and I'm not Ghandi, and when someone cuts me of in traffic I respond without kindness. But there are times when I try to step back, and try to remind myself to take the road of not saying something- the action of silence, of no response (hence the username, it was supposed to be a reminder... Call it God, or grace, or whatever you want, but I do see it as the moral high road. Merry Christmas |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Dear Stephen, thank you for your simple words. Actually I am waiting for you to talk more about the "punishment/reward" and "acceptance/rejection" . Thank you for all your posts. I learned a lot of things from them. Wish you and your loved ones a wonderful Christmas and a Happy new year. May God richly bless you!! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I am telling you here that you just think that you are a great man and fair, better than most of people including me, if not Ron. TomMark, say anything about the subject matter you like but personal comments like this go against site policy. Please consider that in the future. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Mike, c'mon, lighten up. Turn the other cheek. Stephen |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
I am very sorry sir Balladeer. Do please delete it. I indeed wrote them with laughter as a joke. Shall I write to Ron or brad? I don't mean to hurt you, sir. I here sincerely to give my apology. I will be too bad to upset you in Christmas Eve. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Like I said at the beginning, Stephen, turning the other cheek is not a specialty of mine. I'll never win the Ghandi award TomMark, don't worry about it. It is Christmas, after all, and I wish you a good one.  |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
[This message has been edited by TomMark (12-26-2007 10:19 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, there are many things you say in your reply which makes sense but others I have a hard time relating to. I can understand the "acceptance/rejection" philosophy and relate it to a heaven but why the Christianity version of it? It could also apply to any religion's version of life after death. Either we are a reflection of God or God is a reflection of us, and in either case understanding, however partial, is attainable. Not sure I understand why it has to be an either/or or what makes the understanding attainable. If we are indeed a reflection of God, how does that make understanding reachable? We can condemn the acceptance/rejection motif of Christianity, perhaps, but with every single one of us doing it in our own lives, I think it's a bit hard to claim we can't understand it. Not meaning to be dense here but every single one of us doing what? btw....merry Chrsitmas, Ron Stephen...but have you explored the idea that wishing someone to hell may be at least as bad as murder? no. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
My dear sir Balladeer, ( I have to be very careful about my future) "I can understand the "acceptance/rejection" philosophy and relate it to a heaven but why the Christianity version of it? It could also apply to any religion's version of life after death." My dear Sir, if you think that it is a philosophy, then it does apply to many religions. But why do I believe them if they have nothing to do with the world, my heart beat and my life? Many grandmas/grandpas tell much more horror logic stories, like thunder cut people who lie or fox talks like a human if one gets confused. yours sincerely Tomtoo [This message has been edited by TomMark (12-25-2007 12:19 AM).] |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “To return to my example of Ghandi- Yes, he was shot dead. Do you think that mattered to him?” “I think if Nathuram Godse had given him the option of a five minute start he’d have taken it.” Agree. And least according to Isaac Asimov, Jesus wasn’t all that thrilled either. Think about it . . . He’s alone while everyone else is asleep so heard his “acceptance” speech? . PS We all have reasons for moving. I move to keep things whole. Mark Strand |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Balladear Ah dear Balladear Your words was much stronger like a sharp sward than your palms and dozen fingers You cut my heart in two halves in your loud, merciless laugh Now I am tending my tears while clean up my blood if you hate me that much Give you best hit, my deer. On Cheeks or not, who cares? Just go there [This message has been edited by TomMark (12-26-2007 01:28 PM).] |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. ‘There are people however who will believe in an afterlife and aren’t totally enamoured with their lot in this one. Telling them that at some point down the road their life won’t seem all that important, even to the point where being murdered isn’t crucial, could be construed as giving them one more reason to get to that better place that much quicker.’ “Jesus of Nazareth (all four Gospels) chose to aggravate the authorities into crucifying him. Jesus was explicit in stating that his life was not being taken but that he was voluntarily choosing death: "No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself." (John 10:18) While many Christians would vehemently deny that this amounts to suicide, Jesus' actions in behaving in a way that he knew would cause the authorities to condemn and execute him, and his refusal to take any action to avoid his execution, is similar to what today would be called "suicide by cop," and even more closely parallels the execution/suicide of Socrates, and the self-imposed martyrdoms carried out by members of the heretical Donatist schism and condemned by St. Augustine” http://www.ashbusstop.org/Biblesuicide.html . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
But John, in context, Jesus' act should be seen as a voluntary giving up of life, for the life of others. Someone who jumps in the path of a speeding car to shield a child, is never called suicidal. There's also the intriguing fact that though Christ gave his life "willingly" as it were, the active role of the murderous authorities still stands. A passive obedience to God, and an active murderous intent of his murderers were juxtaposed. All Jesus did was to continue to do what was right and pure in conscience. In order to be reasonably thought of as anything like a suicide, Jesus would have had to play a more active role in the end of his own life. Yes, willingly he went to die. But willingly living in obedience to God, not willing seeking death for its own sake. He prayed "Let this cup pass from me" didn't he? A key to good Biblical analysis is to balance all these curious facts, not just isolated statements. His crucifixion is a unique thing in history. But it certainly has more the characteristics of martyrdom and the death of the hero, than a suicide. Stephen |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "A key to good Biblical analysis is to balance all these curious facts" "good" being what you want to end up with. Isaac Asimov I think did a better job . . . http://www.amazon.com/Asimovs-Guide-Bible-Testament s-Volumes/dp/B000L9X4XA/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198712849&sr=1-4 PS I've bought it hardcover for less than $13 so shop around; Hamilton Bookseller may still have it . . . . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: No, "good" being an interpretation which takes into account everything, not just a smattering of scripture. Anyone who says Jesus was suicidal has honed in upon one element only ... his decisiveness. But that and a death, does not a suicide make. Any detective knows, you have to consider the whole story. If I am merely interpreting to suit my fancy, then what do you make of Jesus' prayer "Let this cup pass from me, yet not my will but thine be done"? Interpretations that are morbid may also be subject to eisegetical bias. Whether the conclusion from any text is humanly congenial, or disturbing, or some mixture of the two, the true measure of whether it is valid has to do with how well it explains all the data, not just pieces at the expense of everything else. quote: Asimov was a biochemist, and fictional writer, and an atheist. Not to say he doesn't add anything valuable to the study of the Bible ... But I would read wider than him, especially concerning a book and a tradition which does not discount God, but asserts that he is central to its interpretation. And as far as higher criticism goes, Asimov's critiques are bettered by other unbelieving scholars, simply because his was a lay-attempt at higher criticism; though no one questions his intelligence. Ever heard of N.T. Wright? As a historian and clergyman, he is probably the most provocative voice of challenge to the non-traditional interpretations of Jesus. The book "Who Was Jesus" is one of many that could serve as an introduction to his writings http://www.amazon.com/Who-Was-Jesus-N-Wright/dp/0802806945/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product But rather than pit intellectuals against each other, via Amazon Links, I would rather ask you yourself why you find the "suicidal" description of Jesus' death as convincing. Though I respect scholars of all kinds, and enjoy them as supplementary helps to my own studies, this is too important a subject to me to delegate entirely. Stephen |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Dear John 1. God is there, in Bible and out of Bible. 2. God is not relevant to death. 3. Jesus is God and a human body without sin. If Bible is philosophical book, then the basis is sin and to get rid of it so there would be no suffering. There were many ways to "rid of the sin". If Bible is from God to partially reveal God's characters and the fate of human being whom God created, then, we read it as part of faith and truth. The suicide of Jesus. Did Jesus want to die? No. As you quoted from Bible. But What he said was not the common sense of death. He knew clearly that he was going to resurrect. then why he still thought that it was bitter cup? Death to God means to go through humans' sin and this was the part that he would not want to accept but he had to because that was pre-planned( God knows that this world would reject him and kill him )that he had to bear the sin of entire human race. Supposing there is a man who is going to get capital punishment today but the Judge wants you to die for him and promises that you would be alive after three days. Will you do that? No. Because you will think that you did not commit any crime. why bother yourself go through the process plus being beaten, tortured and insulted? I will definitely not do that. How Jesus viewed human life? He Raised a widow's son (Luke 7:11) he raise Lazarus and how he told his apostles in Matthew 10:16 "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."(KJ) Nobody thoroughly understand all Bible. A good Christian in God eyes may have been granted some wisdom but an atheist fiction writer's words was surly from his own imagination and with his best respect, he merely treated Bible as a Philosophical or historical book. Of course it is more than those. There are many sayings and explanations of Bible from all kind of authors and by many fictions too. Will you tell me that you have watched the movie "Passion" and you have been greatly moved by the scenes. Will you be moved again if I wrote a more cruel and thrilling one? It is not the heroic death that made him a God Or God's son. God has characters. Bible revealed some. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."(KJ) Then Why he is related to suicide-the self-murder? is there any Bible verse talking about this kind of heroism? You will not tell me that a mother died for saving her children is suicide behave, will you? Tomtoo |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
This thread reminded me of so many lessons in life and how the wisdom & strong principles of my elders influenced me and helped me through. I feel it depends on the situation, and there are many ways a person might manage to "turn the other cheek." Grandmomma was a tiny, graceful & joyful woman who was never short on wisdom: "Kill them with kindness," she'd say. Granddaddy was a big man who came from the days when men were only as good as their word: "A man who strikes down another man's character behind his back is spineless, and a man who strikes others in the face is usually behind on his reason." I also had a great affinity for an 89 year old patient at the elder care facility where I worked. She told me so many wonderful stories of her youth and this one was about when her and her husband were first married: She said her husband hit her. "We got into a spat and he hauled off and slapped me across the face, and I thought my heart was broken in-two. But then I got mad about it. I thought about givin' him a big lump on the head when he was sleepin' that night with the iron skillet. But I prayed about it and fell off to sleep. We went to church the next day, and the lord spoke to me. Sayin' 'beg for your husband's forgiveness!' So I did. Right there in front of everyone; God, the preacher, the whole congregation. I threw myself down at my husband's feet: "Please forgive me for being a bad wife. I promise I'll be good so you won't have to hit me any more. I had no right to upset you and you had to slap me down. Hard! Right across the face. Forgive me my darlin' husband. Please, please?" long story short...he never hit her again in their 60something years of marriage. I think one has to have a plan, and be able to stick to it??? Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but isn't it about choices? how there's a right way and a wrong way, two wrongs don't make a right, try try again, striving for peace in the face of violence, etc. and yes, I know. I've been in gang violence related altercations, and pleas for peace were nothing but weak-animal attractions for predatory victimizers. They feed off of fear/passivity and about the only hope one has is to NOT be the one they've singled out. I didn't turn the other cheek. I fought my way out of being a rape victim and I certainly don't feel bad about that. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Stephen, I think Jesus was blindsided. The bibles which were written long after the event progessively do their best to put a good face on tragedy. Where does it make sense that he had to die; vengeful God thing? God so loved man that He sacrificed His only son; and who put a gun to God's head and gave Him that choice? John |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Turning other cheek does not mean "Give in". It is love and love includes NOT nurturing anyone's selfishness. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Becoming men brings out the best of the gods. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
John: quote: Blindsided? Weren't you saying that it was a suicide? The thing is, if you are skeptical about the accuracy of the Gospels, then you also have no basis upon which to say that Jesus was suicidal or that it was even a tragedy. Jesus could have been a common criminal for all you know. But, having said that, I will remind you that the methods of textual transmission (and the time frame) were typical for that culture and time period. When you say "long after", you are implying such a time period that would guarantee distortion. But it wasn't as long as you make it out to be, considering their means. Also dating methods of less conservative scholars have often been based upon dubious methods, such as dating any prophetic material as after the event it predicts, because (as we all know) real prophetic utterances are ruled out beforehand. But this poorly thought out approach has also thrown many of their previous theories (about dating and source materials) in disarray. The point is, an argument for textual fidelity and relatively early dates, is still strong. That doesn't mean you can't doubt it. You can doubt anything. quote: Ever felt the certainty that injustices were really wrong? Ever been angry at abuse or opression? Ever felt that someone had really wronged you or someone you cared about ... and felt that really (underneath it all) it wasn't just opinion? If we can feel imperfect anger at wrongs committed (and be right about this feeling at least part of the time), why is it so hard to imagine God having perfect anger? And considering the crucifixion as a demonstration of God's wrath, is only one way to look at it. The cross can also be seen as the weight of the world, the inevitable outcome of wickedness and sin and rebellion, falling upon a person. Existentially it can be seen as the lot of death, in its most bitter form, falling upon him because of his union with us who live in the Valley of the Shadow of Death. There are many reasons why it had to be. quote: That's actually the wonder of it all. No compulsion, except love. As you've noted already, Jesus didn't go kicking and screaming and unwillingly. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
How is sacrificing one's own son (or anyone for that matter) a good deed? |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Sir Essorant, "How is sacrificing one's own son (or anyone for that matter) a good deed?" "sacrificing" ..the meaning here is to went through death which was brought on to this world by sin. But Jesus was sinless. Jesus died but resurrected in three days which tells the whole human race that there is a after life. He is the example. God does this is out of love.....why flood again? "good deed".... After that, the Holy spirit came and the holy spirit, you know, the source of love, hope and faith. The spirit will with human beings whoever follows his teaching. my thought PS why stop commenting in CA? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, there aspects of this, which make it unique. For one, Jesus was willing to do the Father's will, and knew the benefit that would ensue. Secondly, besides being the Father's Son, Jesus is also thought of as the human incarnation of God himself. (Yes that's where the Trinity comes in) Taking these things into account, it has been viewed as something like paying someone else's debt, or taking the place of someone else's punishment ... And that's where it becomes something understandable to us. Also, most of us understand the concept that "the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few". And though that principle has been used as an excuse to do some really horrible things, we see how it can be valid in certain circumstances. If the crucifixion seems unjust to you, perhaps you should consider the greater good of salvation. It might also be more easily accepted by you, if you remember that it was a most willing act, on the part of the sacrificed. It's also easier to grasp the spirit of this, if one reads it from the source, not the cliff notes (so to speak). The book of Luke is a good place to start. Though I prefer more contemporary translations, you could even read it in the 1611 KJV, which might make it more enjoyable to you. Stephen |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
...which all leads me back to the point I've discussed many times. Allowing Jesus to die and then bringing him back to life is not a sacrifice....having him remain dead would be. God may have sacrificed Jesus' time on earth but that's it. The phrase "God sacrificed His son" is erronious since Jesus came back to life, as was God's plan all along. Did Houdini sacrifice his beautiful assistant by sawing her in half, even though afterwards she appeared back to being whole again, bowing to the thunderous applause? Nope. God did a Houdini... |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
My dear Sir Balladeer (I am very careful now) "which all leads me back to the point I've discussed many times. Allowing Jesus to die and then bringing him back to life is not a sacrifice" I have to, too, bring back the point I made it 5 minutes ago, the "sacrifice" here is not the common human sense. It is the worst betray not only in spiritual but in physical body too of Himself. There was a poem by Petôfi Sándor Forgive me for the bad translation (can't find a English translation) Life is precious Love worths even more but for the sake of freedom I care neither Even human consider many things are more worthy than his own individual life. And how do you feel about "personal attack"? The rule was there when the site was built but someone rude like me still wanted to touch it. Then comes your punishment and forgiveness system. Do you feel hurt when I "attack" you? and how many times you intended to protect your teammate (Sir Brad?) Yes, the feelings, the feelings, the feelings. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Put all the mist, metaphors and romantic thought around it as you want, but it is just round-a-about way of trying to glorify a horrible death that never ought to happen to anyone. There is no salvation brought to anyone by a man being hung on a cross to die, especially not a man as great as Christ. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Balladeer: quote: And you continue to deny the most important distinction between Jesus and the sleight of hand you just described ... Jesus really died. Its trifling to argue that the crucifixion of Christ should not be called a sacrifice just because you think resurrection makes death insignificant. In a worldview that asserts a future resurrection for all, how does that follow? I believe you will be raised from the dead, and yet that wouldn't devalue (in my eyes or yours) any kind of sacrifice you might make for someone else ... whether of money, time, or blood. For no matter where you're heading, you're still where you are. Essorant: quote: Sometimes romanticism clarifies things Essorant. The most romantically poetic of pipsters should know that! You can choose a flatly prosaic way to look at anything and miss the soul and spirit of it. I think that's what you may be doing here. First of all the crucifixion of Christ is not merely portrayed as good, as something to be glibly accepted and celebrated. It's not that simple. True to the strangeness of life, its more complicated than that. Of course it was something that "never ought to happen to anyone". I think the writers of the New Testament concede that point, because its humanly impossible not to. But "ought not" and "need not" may not always be synonymous. Far from glorifying murder, the crucifixion makes it appear for what it really is ... and yet still shows that God may bring good out of the very worst. In this kind of world, I think we need to know that. quote: Then you deny the central teaching of the New Testament and the experiential witness of millions of Christians. It actually reminds me of Christ's response to Peter in Matthew 16:21-23 (emphasis mine). "From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. 'Never, Lord!' he said. 'This shall never happen to you!' Jesus turned and said to Peter, 'Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.'" Or think of it this way Ess ... Even you said that the gods are best when they become men. Well in this wickedly wrought death, God was becoming man at his very worst, so that all may have hope. So that God could really say "I've been there". Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-28-2007 05:42 PM).] |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Sir Essorant, you may drew any conclusion based on your observation. You were right in some part. It was a horrible death. Some more horrible death are more glorified than his indeed, esp in war time. one death could save dozens lives. But no one has been made into a God's son. And what is your meaning of "salvation"? Do you believe it? yes? why? no? why? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Regina: quote: I just wanted to add that I thought your response was very astute. In studying this out, I haven't come as far as Reb in thinking that "turning the other cheek" was a sign of subversion and rebellion to the powers that be. (too many other things Jesus said against zealotry and about submission to authority make this unlikely) But even the scholar F.F. Bruce noted that "it is not difficult to see the other cheek being turned in a very provocative manner". When I read that by Bruce, I thought of the little old lady you described, and couldn't help but smile. Stephen |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“Sometimes romanticism clarifies things Essorant. The most romantically poetic of pipsters should know that!” Which is itself a romanticism. “And you continue to deny the most important distinction between Jesus and the sleight of hand you just described ... Jesus really died. " It was only a couple of centuries ago that, (it is now estimated), as many as ten percent of those dead in England were interred in their graves or tombs while still alive. That’s what a “wake” is about. I seem to recall that back in the time of Christ it was tradition to inter or entomb someone before the sunset of the day of their “death”. Christ was not beheaded, drawn and quartered. There were a number of resurrections reported before of lesser figures. And let’s remember the Romans and most everyone else at the time seemed to have missed it, (most authorities agree the very brief mention in Josephus was a later insertion; how near to the events was the earliest Gospel written). Islam I think has a figure or two that simply went away someday to return to make things right. John |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Dear John, You want to say that Jesus was not dead. He was not totally dead and he walked out of the tomb alive. (His disciples did not recognize him, why?) Why not bring out all your puzzlements such as 1. Did God create the world? and in 7 days? 2. Did God only talk to certain people? why? why only moses? why many so all could write done something? 3. Why God did not kill Adam and eve and make some new un-sined ones? 4. Why flood again? 5 Why Jesus came to the world now so we have more witnesses such as take advantage of youtube? all Satellite TV? 6 Was Jesus married and have children after walking out of his death? 7 why he need to die? and many Besides nature, Bible is the only book that revealed God. If one day that there is a solid prove that Jesus was not dead. Then the whole religion will be down. Then God will be still somewhere. If there were no God, then I should immediately be my own god or follow some human idols who meet my spirit need. Very simple. I want to know the truth of the world and the human beginning and end and the soul and moral and happiness and love and suffering. It doesn't matter that they are flat facts or curved summary. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
John, The "Swoon Theory" has already swooned in my opinion, and its alleged story has many more difficulties (historically speaking) than the orthodox one. Your approximation of accidental burials of the living-sick in England a couple of centuries ago, with the Roman Guard of the first century A.D. (whose occupation was to inflict capital punishment) is nearly comic. "Some ... have suggested that Jesus did not really die on the cross. Against all the proponents of this so-called 'swoon' theory, as it has often been called, we must stress that the Romans knew how to kill people. The reappearance of a battered and exhausted Jesus would hardly have suggested that he had gone through death and out the other side, that the kingdom of God had indeed come, that “the resurrection” had occurred ... " (N.T. Wright- emphasis mine) Stephen |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "the Romans knew how to kill people" Unless they were paid off . . . It was suspected then . . . "nearly comic" Which is more comic: that, or a man actually dead rising up? It's been 2,000 years . . . John |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
which is comic? I want your heart beat faster, dear John, Can I? Now, this is comic. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: The followers of Jesus weren't exactly the rich and famous then ... but let's say they did pay off the Roman soldiers (who would be sentenced to a swift death- for failing at their post). What would have been their motive? In light of the Jewish expectations of the Messiah, and their disappointed desires, what motivation would they have to risk ostracization from the monolithic Jewish society, just to vaunt the triumphs of a corpse? Sorry, doesn't make sense. And given the explosive impetus of the Christian beginnings, there has to be a better explanation than hysteria or sleight of hand. quote: And now more than ever, eschatological prophecies are making more sense, and showing more congruity to what we see, not less. The curious fact of Israel coming center stage to the world's instability is no small coincidence, and one that should get your attention especially (you've just now posted another thread on Philosophy that attests to apocalyptic anxiety, before I even responded) Surely you can at least say with Yeats "some revelation is at hand". Apocalyptic forboding has increased, and not decreased. It is at least significant to note that these things were most aptly described by Jesus, when he addressed the end of the age to his inquiring disciples. Stephen |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Apocalyptic anxiety has always gone in cycles, just as you brought up Yeats (quite a while ago). No doubt it was present duriny the Beubonic plague are, along with the influenza epidemic which killed millions. Any time that there is a reason, it appears. In this nuclear age, combined with the unrest in the world, it is a natural. Besides, we have Al Gore... |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Cycles yes. And some things that come in cycles intensify and reach a culmination. That's probably why Jesus described these things as "Birth pangs". Contractions recur, reminding her of the inevitable ... but not every contraction is indicative of deliverance. With the advent of the nuclear age we've reached a new plane of apocalyptic possibilities. When Jesus talked about the end of the age, he did something that puzzles many people. He talked simultaneously of immediate events, recurrent events, and culminative events. His answer to the disciple's question of where and when, was a strange saying about vultures gathering, which amounted to "if the shoe fits, wear it". There have been many situations in history of apocalyptic significance. But he also spoke very clearly of culmination which would end in his return. Just some of my thoughts as I've studied these scriptures over the years. Stephen |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
