Comments - Powered by HaloScan.com

Join up. Where's the service?
Suckacheetah'sdick | Email | 04.21.04 - 8:26 pm | #

i'll have to ask mafoosa about that.
ollie | 04.21.04 - 8:57 pm | #

Oh, come on, he's a janitor: They always think they're prophets. I don't know about making up the salvation stuff, but focusing on his death more than on his life seems like it could have easily been propagandist. The whole notion of self-sacrifice... the idea that we owe something and don't really deserve anything ...seems like an Orwellian scenario to me. Thanks for the essay, by the way, I just happened to be teaching Animal Farm.
KELLIE | Email ??? | 04.21.04 - 11:23 pm | #

Oh yeah, I think you should partially join Mafoosa, partially view the teachings of Jesus as contradictory to Christianity, and partially believe that the doctrine of salvation is a lie.
KELLIE | Email ??? | 04.21.04 - 11:29 pm | #

that's a lot of partiality.
ollie | 04.22.04 - 12:08 am | #

I would like Mafoosa to ask Jesus for his help.

My idea is that if all of the priests plus Jesus and Mafoosa get together at once, they can bless all the water on the planet. Then since all the water everywhere will be Holy Water we can wash our sins away just by bathing (and brushing and flossing). Or swimming or drinking lemonade.

No one would ever have to worry about this sin hangup ever again. People would be so happy.

Please Jesus?
melior | Email | 04.22.04 - 2:03 am | #

Of all the sins, my favorite is coveting. I love walking around thinking stuff like "God, if I could only have those rainbow colored Fluvogs" or "My butt is so dimply, if I could only have a couple Jlo butt bags like her."

My second favorite sin is the false idol one. I totally worship Fifty Cent. Sorry, I just do. He is a god to me.

Anyway, I could sure use some of that magic lemonade to wash me up. Hook me up Mafooosa!
porker | Email | 04.22.04 - 1:00 pm | #

Blessing all the water would be most excellent. Supposing this could be accomplished, and seeing that it has, apparently, not occurred, I think the concept of determinism is raised as a philosophical question. I would like to get a copy of a translation of the earliest Biblical compilation in existence to compare it to all that King James shit. Maybe it's categorically different.
Kellie | Email blah | 04.22.04 - 3:46 pm | #

It's funny you should ask, kellie:

http://www.mentata.com/ldaphttp/examples/gospel/retrieve_chapters.htm

The King James shit is also available here, but as you may guess, I recommend the NRSV for what you're asking for.

Incidentally, this example was released as my own protest to the Iraq war last year. This comment is in protest to YYAF telling me I'm all wrong (and Mafoosa is right?) on my Jesus Blog. Peace out.
mentata | Email | Homepage | 04.22.04 - 5:18 pm | #

Ummmm. That was me. Not YYAF.

And I still fear you and your Jesus Blog have it wrong.
porker | Email | 04.22.04 - 5:23 pm | #

My mistake. A glance at the site makes it difficult who is a yik yak, who is a moth, and who is most absorbed in cult of personality. Not that I'm talking:

http://www.mentata.com/news/ht/

Fear not, brother. I have approximately nobody tell me releasing an alternative liturgy as a pseudo-weblog was a good idea, but I'm not sweating it because it wasn't my call. Every time somebody reads it, considers it, and replies (case in point) it meets an aim beyond my expectation. There is absolutely no new religion for you to join. As a matter of fact, the U.S. Government
declared in 1993 that it would not recognize any religions arising after the mid-1950s. Consider yourself a free agent or punch your ticket with a denomination, it's all good to me. I'll just ask that if you look out at the billions of stars in the heavens and begin to feel alone in your quest for truth and meaning in life, just remember one thing: you are. It's the empirical egalitarianism of finding your own path.
mentata | Email | Homepage | 04.23.04 - 10:09 am | #

Your friend Mafoosa is all wrong and he needs to go check his sources again.

-- Just a few observations to demonstrate Mafoosa's errors. One, there is no Jewish law forbidding eating pork on Fridays, it's pork in general, not on a specific day of the week. It was St. Paul, and not Jesus, by the way, that spoke the line about what comes out of your mouth is what matters. Paul decided that many of the Jewish dietary laws were too much show and not enough substance. Later the early Church then instituted the rule of not eating meat on Fridays. Because Jesus was the new and ultimate sacrificial victim and he died on a Friday, the Church institued the no meat on Friday's rule to honor and remember this fact and for humans to enter in solidarity with Jesus' sacrifice. Later, the Church, in the Vatican II council, loosened the rule to only forbid eating meat on Fridays during Lent so long as an alternative sacrifice was chosen on other Fridays.

Continued...
Joshua | 04.23.04 - 11:59 am | #

Which leads us to:
** "I thought Jesus came to fulfill the Law."

--Jesus himself said he came to fulfill the law not contradict it. The Church didn't just make that up. And yes, that is partially why the Jewish officials wanted him executed. What Christians mean when they say that Jesus did not come to contradict the law but to fulfill it is that Jews of his day (and all humans) tend to treat laws and regulations as ends in themselves - legalism - but Jesus insisted that we remember that the law is simply a means to an end - the end of love. The rules of the Jews are not bad in themselves; in fact, if followed properly and kept in perspective they do indeed assist our ability to love. But if the rules contradict our ability to love - say helping a sick man on the Sabbath, then love shall trump.
Joshua | 04.23.04 - 12:00 pm | #

"God loves queers very much."

Of course God does, as he does hookers and tax collectors. Any Christian who says otherwise isn't a Christian. But the point is this: Either it matters how you act and what you say or it doesn't? If it doesn't, then Jesus' message cannot be followed. He clearly tells us how to act, with love. If it does matter how you act and speak, then according to which standard do we behave? Christ did not condone the actions of hookers and tax collectors, he simply loved them and invited them TO BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY. Mary Magdelane did not remain a hooker once she began following Jesus.

continued...
Joshua | 04.23.04 - 12:07 pm | #

Either our actions have consequences for ourselves and others or they don't. If not, behave how you want, it doesn't matter. Don't talk about love or whether President Bush should do this or that. Nothing matters, just do what you want.
But if our actions do have consequences, according to which standards must we act? That is the point of the idea of "holiness." What is holy is the standard. Jewish law took great pains to maintain this distinction so that the standard was not muddled and confused. As does Jesus, but he just tweaks the standard to remind us that the end is love, not the laws of the Jews, which are only meant as a means to love.
Joshua | 04.23.04 - 12:10 pm | #

Jesus is the one who specifically gave his apostles the power to control who goes to Heaven. He told them, whose sins you forgive on Earth are forgiven in Heaven. Whose bond you loose on Earth are loosed in Heaven. Again, it's the inescapable either/or. Either everyone goes to Heaven or not. If everyone goes to Heaven, their is not standard of behavior required. Hitler, Saddam, unrepentant mass murderers and rapists... everyone.
Joshua | 04.23.04 - 12:13 pm | #

Finally, as to the Doctrine of Salvation. What is Jesus saving us from by his death on the cross? Sin and unhappiness, death, suffering, loneliness, fear, our own limitations, our weak will, our inability to act how we really want and live up to the kind of person we really want to be. We either need salvation from these horrors or we don't. If not, behave how you will, it doesn't matter.
Joshua | 04.23.04 - 12:16 pm | #

Joshua,

Your "legalism" idea sounds nice. But what are you really saying?

Look: "An eye for an eye"
"Turn the other cheek"

There is nothing legalistic about understanding that Jesus contradicts the teaching "an eye for an eye." It is obvious. All you must use to understand that is your God given common sense. Legalism seems to me to be what you use when you make your "means to an end" argument.

If you are not using the example of Jesus's life and words to justify your beliefs, you are a Christian theologan and not one who is a student of Jesus. If I remember the gospels correctly, Jesus never says anything about "standards by which we act" or "consequences of our actions."

Lets really talk about Jesus.
thanksk,
ollie
ollie | 04.23.04 - 2:32 pm | #

Good points, Ollie, but...

Here's how we synthesize "eye for an eye" with "turn the other cheek." Eye for an eye is simply the short hand definition for what we mean when we use the term "justice" - giving each his due. If I slap your face, justice dictates that I should have my face slapped by you. This keeps things fair and ordered - bad actions have consequences. Such an ordered society allows for more civil harmoneous relationships, which are good and most conducive for real loving relationships. Now, Jesus takes the idea of justice one step further. Even more disarming and courageous than justice is suffering the original slap and turning the other cheek. Jesus is not suggesting that the original slapper doesn't deserve a slap back or that we abandon the idea of justice, but that the higher ground, the loving action, is to turn the other cheek.
Joshua | 04.23.04 - 2:45 pm | #

Jesus also says that he is the truth, the way and the life. Anyone who follows truth, follows Jesus.

The posited either/or scenarios are logical truths, therefore are illustration of being a "student of Jesus." Or what of "common sense" that you suggest I use? Jesus does not speak of common sense. Why are my arguments not common sense and yours are?

If you can't answer my either/or scenarios, say so; if not, don't cop out by labeling me a theologian and dishoneslty dismissing me as running contrary to common sense.

As to what you mean by "really talk about Jesus" I'm not sure what you mean. Give me an example of where what I have said contradicts the real Jesus.
Joshua | 04.23.04 - 2:49 pm | #

From the Gospel of Thomas:

6 His disciples asked him and said to him, "Do you want us to fast? How should we pray? Should we give to charity? What diet should we observe?"

Jesus said, "Don't lie, and don't do what you hate, because all things are disclosed before heaven. After all, there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and there is nothing covered up that will remain undisclosed."

I'd imagine a gay man may hate being forced to deny his sexuality. It's not simply a matter of behavioral standards.
porker | Email | 04.23.04 - 2:54 pm | #

I apologize for labelling you. I cannot answer the either/or scenarios. When I say really talk about Jesus, I mean limiting the discussion to the actual things that Jesus says and what he does in the gospel stories.

For instance, In none of the stories does Jesus talk about someone "deserving their due" or receiving the consequences of their sins. No where in the gospels does Jesus talk about keeping things "fair and ordered." No where in the gospels does he talk about "society."

So, I am suggesting that your ideas on these matters do not originate with Jesus what so ever. If you believe that they do, pleas use actual quotes form Jesus and actual Bible stories to make your point.

thanks,
ollie
ollie | 04.23.04 - 3:01 pm | #

Just to point out one of Joshua's errors, this line doesn't come from Paul:

http://www.mentata.com/ds/retrieve/gospel/verse/GVMarkC07V15

Here Jesus wasn't eating pork, he was eating with dirty hands, which defied the tradition of the elders.
Mark | 04.23.04 - 3:21 pm | #

"Mark" that does not make what I said an error,as you point out, Jesus is here being chastized for not ritualistically washing his hands, not eating pork. Paul specifically addresses the need for Christians to follow Jewish dietary laws with a similar response.

Porker, I see you are quoting the Gospel of Thomas. Who or what authority deems that to be a reliable source on Jesus?
Joshua | 04.23.04 - 3:44 pm | #

Ollie:

But as Joshua pointed out, Christ did say that He came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it. With the "eye for an eye"/"turn the other cheek" teaching (as with many of His other teachings), unless you refuse to accept the possibility that these two statements of His are reconcilable, it doesn't make sense to take everything Christ says at face value, without making certain inferences, as Joshua does. Even those "students of Jesus" that lived and learned first-hand from Him had to make inferences from what He was saying in order to understand Him correctly. By your definitions (as I understand them), no true Christian could be a "student of Jesus" and not a "Christian theologian."
Lisa | 04.23.04 - 3:49 pm | #

Ollie said:
"So, I am suggesting that your ideas on these matters do not originate with Jesus what so ever. If you believe that they do, pleas use actual quotes form Jesus and actual Bible stories to make your point."

This betrays a suprisingly "fundamental" view of Jesus. I thought it was the Christians that were accused of being fundamentalist.

Fair enough.

Matthew 19:9 -- Jesus says, "Whoever divorces his wife... and marries another woman commits adultery."

Immediate Implications: Jesus recognizes a thing called adultery, which he considers bad, a sin. He does not condone such behavior and suggests that those who wish to follow him and his teachings should not engage in it. Therefore followers of Jesus should not divorce and remarry.
Joshua | 04.23.04 - 4:01 pm | #

That text says nothing about society or consequences. That's like saying, "If a person drives 10 miles over the speed limit, he has committed Speeding." It show that Jesus understood the law.

I totally advocate a "fundamental" view of Jesus if that means reading what he said and thinking about what he did rather than talking about "accepting jesus as your personal lord and savior" and the other teachings of christianity that are not present in the gospels.

I do not see how the Jesus of the Gospels can be reconciled with the teachings of the "Christian books - acts, romans, corinthians, etc.." Nor do I see how the teachings Jesus in the Gospels can fulfill the Old testament.

Please show me that i'm wrong so i can go to church again with a clear conscience.
ollie | 04.23.04 - 4:09 pm | #

Every so often someone named Mafoosa or Ollie or whatever thinks he has discovered the "real" teachings of Jesus, and that 2000 years of civilization is all mistaken. (Yawn) Nobody takes much notice. It just shows a lack of knowledge about religion in general, and Christianity in particular.
Ideas like that only appeal to the young, lazy and uninformed. Y'know, Jesus said a LOT about UFO's too, but it was all censored out by St. Paul and the early Church CONSPIRACY.
Wanna know the REAL TRUTH?? For REAL?
The early Christians made it ALL UP!
Jesus kept his mouth shut.
Fr. Matthew K | Email | Homepage | 04.23.04 - 4:13 pm | #

Ollie,

Now do you define the "Gospels"? Which books and what translations does it include and exclude? Who or what authority makes the decision as to what is authentic and reliable and what is not?
Joshua | 04.23.04 - 4:16 pm | #

Ollie,

Are you suggesting that Jesus saying "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery" does not imply that Jesus is telling his followers to not divorce and remarry? You think he was engaging in a lark with the Pharisees, a fun discussion of definitions and terms? Really?
Joshua | 04.23.04 - 4:18 pm | #

Fuck authority. I trust my instincts.
porker | Email | 04.23.04 - 4:25 pm | #

Colorful argument, Porker.

This coming from someone who earlier threw me into a category of "born agains" and told me to "try thinking."

Which would you rather I do, think and figure out the reasons behind my opinions or just "Fuck authority" and go with my instincts?
Joshua | 04.23.04 - 4:28 pm | #

I'm being lazy today. Keep up the good work.
porker | Email | 04.23.04 - 4:33 pm | #

Lisa,

Can you find the scripture where Jesus says he came to fulfill the law. That would certainly half of Mafoosa's argument.

Joshua,

it may not imply that.

Fr. Matthew,

you are sadly mistaken. These people that come along often create massive dents in current understanding. Consider Martin Luther. Consider John Wesley.

you "yawn" betrays your own laziness.
ollie | 04.23.04 - 5:53 pm | #

"would certainly destroy half of mafoosa's argument."
ollie | 04.23.04 - 5:55 pm | #

Matthew 5:17-18
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

That's as strong an endorsement of the Jewish law as you can get.
Joshua | 04.23.04 - 6:30 pm | #

What massive dents did Luther and Wesley create in our current understanding?
Joshua | 04.23.04 - 6:50 pm | #

I can't get too specific on martin luther and what not. What i do know is that the concept of free will and choice and responsibility and individuality were new to Protestantism and had not been endorsed by catholicism.

I want to really stick to the two Mafoosa points:

1. Jesus couldn't be fulfilling the law when he contradicts it.

2. The notion that "Jesus died as a sacrificial animal for our sins" is a way to ignore the egalitarian teachings of the sermon on the mount.

i'm not sure what "fulfill" means in that context.

do you not agree that "turn the other cheek" contradicts "an eye for an eye?"
ollie | 04.23.04 - 7:12 pm | #

"What i do know is that the concept of free will and choice and responsibility and individuality were new to Protestantism and had not been endorsed by catholicism."

I'm not sure where you got this, but I do know that St. Thomas Aquinas developed in great detail Catholic theology surrounding free will and how sin and guilt relate to it. Martin Luther actually postulated that before grace enters the soul, a person has *no* free will. I'm not so sure about Wesley, but from what I know, he followed Calvinist teachings, which include the concept of predestination, namely, that a person *never* has free will.
Lisa | 04.23.04 - 7:56 pm | #

Concerning point #1:

So you're willing to concede that the understanding of Matt. 5:17 may go beyond the surface, but are not willing to make the same concession with regards to "eye for an eye"/"turn the other cheek"? Can you explain to me how this is consistent? Perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly.
Lisa | 04.23.04 - 8:09 pm | #

well, i'm not using interpretive rules. an eye for an eye is clearly contradicted by turn the other cheek. they are clearly elaborated acts.

in the case of "fulfilling the law," that is a confusing verb. i don't wish to go beneath the surface. i would just like to find out what "fulfilling" means. it's a strange phrase. do you know what the translastion from aramaic says?

it could mean "to fill" because the law was empty.

it could mean "to finish" like the law was incomplete.

the aquinas thing is out of my league. but if i remember correctly, aquinas was a bit on the fringe.

but i really would like to some kind of an understanding of what is going on with Jesus saying that "an eye for and eye" is fulfilled by "turn the other cheek."
ollie | 04.23.04 - 8:54 pm | #

one possibility is that Jesus is posturing (politiking) when he says, "i didn't come to destroy the law." Had he said otherwise, would anyone have listened?

if my message was different than the message of a church, and i wanted them to listen to me, wouldn't i have to start with some politeness?
ollie | 04.23.04 - 8:59 pm | #

ollie:
If Mafoosa is supposed to approximate me, I can't take responsibility for either of the two points you want to stick to because I don't make them, particularly the one about salvation.

Joshua:
You said it was St. Paul, not Jesus, that spoke of what comes out of the mouth, and I showed you where Jesus is credited with the specific phrase. I don't know where pork co

Current thread:
When Jesus came to fulfill the law, whose law was he talking about? He didn't determine what books made the bible, which in its current form post-dates him by centuries. In Luke 6:1-5 Jesus certainly isn't squaring with the law. While the Sermon on the Mount attests that the enumeration of mans' sins is indeed countless, breaking man's laws is not necessarily among them. These sins are also, every one of them, forgivable through repentance, which is not man's view of justice.
mentata | Email | Homepage | 04.24.04 - 9:31 am | #

"where the pork comes in at all."
mentata | Email | Homepage | 04.24.04 - 9:32 am | #

Fr. Matthew K

Every few weeks, somebody looks at my content and rejects it out of hand, assuming I never read a book. If your thinking is never challenged, you don't grow.

2000 years of civilization is often mistaken. The scribes and Pharisees were civilization for Jesus. Just keep watching "religious" leaders throw the cornerstone out again and again, endorsing or implying intolerance in their sermons. I'm particularly critical of the current leader of the American religious right, who signed more people to death than anybody in the land as governor, abuses the all too human idea of "just war" to further personal gain as president, and bears false witness against his brothers on a regular basis. They will receive the greater condemnation.
mentata | Email | Homepage | 04.24.04 - 9:48 am | #

Ollie:

I can't speak to what the Aramaic says in that particular verse, though I could find out, if you're really curious.

I'm not sure I can buy the "politeness" theory. Christ said a lot of things that were unpopular, and if He really wanted to deviate from Jewish law and start a new religion, He could have easily done that-- just as there are today, there were a bunch of people doing that back then.
Lisa | 04.24.04 - 1:44 pm | #

As far as the "eye for an eye"/"turn the other cheek" issue is concerned, yes, as instructions on what physically to do in such a case, they are contradictory, as are many of Christ's instructions in other circumstances. But I still think you're wrong about *why* He makes these statements. As Joshua pointed out, in many of these cases, Christ tells those He's healed that their sins are forgiven. If sins don't matter, why does He do this? If sins don't make a difference, why does He tell the woman caught in adultery (whom He saved from being stoned) to "Go, and sin no more"? If sins don't matter, why does He tell His disciples after the resurrection, "Peace be with you. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."?
Lisa | 04.24.04 - 1:45 pm | #

Mafoosa is also wrong in that the Church does not teach that God loves conditionally. Those that go to hell are those that *choose* to go there, i.e. those that choose to live without Love, those that choose to live contrary to Him. He still loves those that are in hell, but He respects their freedom; if they choose to live without Him, He will respect that. If He ceased to love them, they would cease to exist.
Lisa | 04.24.04 - 1:46 pm | #

Mentata:

What exactly is your argument again?
Lisa | 04.24.04 - 1:48 pm | #

Lisa,

I agree with you on your rejection of the "politeness theory." But I think there is much more going on with "fulfill the law" than we are understanding. a look at the aramaic could prove quite useful.

Joshua says that those who sin deserve punishment, but that by forgiving them we are doing the "righteous thing." To my understanding, that is incorrect. That would imply that the purpose of love is to selfishly benefit you soul credit ranking in heaven by not giving out punishments when they are deserved by those who have wronged us. That cannot be the case. Love must be directed toward the other. Forgiveness cannot exist to increase our righteousness credit ranking. Forgiveness exists so that Love may be more abundant. Forgiveness is real. We forgive because we truly do not want to hurt those who have hurt us so that they may learn to help themselves.
ollie | 04.24.04 - 3:57 pm | #

Lisa,

I take issue with your point that people "choose" to go to hell. Though I am grateful for your generousity in reading Mafoosa carefully.

Your "choice argument" is what, to my understanding, was Protestantisms addition to Christianity. As the choice arg goes, the individual chooses heaven or hell and is ultimately responsible for his own salvation through his free will. That cannot be the case even for someone who accepts the doctrine of salvation. How could a man give salvation to himself? Isn't salvation the property of God? It is the "choice perspective" that is at the root of Joshua's "behavioralist Christianity."
Anonymous | 04.24.04 - 4:01 pm | #

i am the "anonymous" above.

Mentata also lays out a mysterious gem. Jesus talks about repentance for those who have commited sins. Is repentance a different view of justice than retribution? What is repentance? I wonder what sin means to Jesus? Is it different that what it meant to the Pharisees. It seems that for the Pharisees, as sin is a violation of a law. For Jesus, sin seems to be more of a thing to be pitied but not punished. eg "forgive them, they know not what they do.

mentata,
where in fla are you from? i'm from daytona area.
ollie | 04.24.04 - 4:06 pm | #

for me from now on:

"an eye for an eye" = retribution

"turn the other cheek" = forgiveness

other strange terms:
"fulfill the law"
"repent"
ollie | 04.24.04 - 4:09 pm | #

Ollie:

I agree absolutely with your first and third posts (and I'll take your definitions in the fourth). The Church defines sin in two ways:

1. objective sin = a thought/action that is morally wrong because it does harm to one or more human persons

2. subjective sin = a person who knows that a particular objective sin is wrong and freely chooses to do it anyway

But you're right-- sin is only wrong *because* it hurts the human being. Instead of saying "sin deserves punishment," it would be more accurate to say that sin *results* in punishment (since human beings were created expressly for, at the very least, friendship with God, sin (the act which contradicts Love) separates the human being from the God Who is Love, thereby leaving the human being empty, as he is not fulfilling his purpose.

(More later-- I gotta go for now :) )
Lisa | 04.24.04 - 6:40 pm | #

Whoops-- saw a mistake in the def. of subjective sin (it's the action that is sin, not the person). :p
Lisa | 04.24.04 - 6:41 pm | #

Lisa,

i am confused about all of this punishment stuff. being separted from God is not a punishment from God. it is simply the absense from God.

to what church are you refering in your definitions of sin?
ollie | 04.24.04 - 9:22 pm | #

Ollie:

I refer to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

"i am confused about all of this punishment stuff. being separted from God is not a punishment from God. it is simply the absense from God."

I mean punishment in the sense that it hurts. Because we have been created to love and to be loved in return, to be separated from the Source of Love will hurt. No, it's not punishment in the sense that God or someone else inflicts it upon us, but it is punishment in the sense that we will reap what we sow.
Lisa | 04.24.04 - 10:48 pm | #

This brings me to my second set of points--

"Your "choice argument" is what, to my understanding, was Protestantisms addition to Christianity."

Again, I don't know where you're getting this, because I know that it's not true. I don't know too much about the newer strains of Protestantism, but both Calvin and Luther were very much against the idea that man can participate in his own salvation. In fact, the greatest division between Lutherans and Catholics lies in justification (never mind the badly-written justification document-- neither the Pope nor significant strains of Lutheranism signed it).
Lisa | 04.24.04 - 10:48 pm | #

"How could a man give salvation to himself?"

This is very much like the questions Luther and Calvin posed. Human beings do not give salvation to themselves, but they *are able to participate in it* (i.e. salvation is a free gift from God, but we still have the ability to refuse it).
Lisa | 04.24.04 - 10:49 pm | #

Luther and Calvin, in fact, so much so refused to accept this that Luther claimed the human being's free will dead prior to the penetration of grace (and then only slowly regenerated over time after baptism), and Calvin, refusing to accept the role of the human in his own salvation, claimed total divine predestination (i.e. that God chooses those to whom He gives salvation; humans have nothing to do with it-- either you're saved, or you're not).

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "behavioral Christianity"? Perhaps I can clarify my position a bit better. (From what I read, it seems Joshua and I are on the same page.)
Lisa | 04.24.04 - 10:50 pm | #

Who's Jesus?

Why is everyone talkin bout him?
What's he done?

-Shibbydayday
Shibbydayday | Email | Homepage | 04.25.04 - 2:06 pm | #

Lisa,

"behavioral Christainity:" By that, I mean this idea: When a person sins against you, they cosmically and naturally dersvere some sort of retribution. Instead of you giving them the punishment, you turn the other cheek and take the path of righteousness, thereby increasing your righteousness credit ranking in heaven and increasing your chance of admittance into that kingdom. Under the behavioral view, good deeds increase righteousness of an individual so that heaven is an incentive for and individual to behave "righteously."

I think that this behavioral Christianity is completely absent from the gospels. As are notions of "what you reap is what you sow" are completely absent.

To my understanding, Jesus's uniqueness as a moral philosopher is in his rejection of such formulation. To offer forgivness for sins is to effectively reject Karma (what you reap is what you sow) and Retribution.
ollie | 04.25.04 - 3:21 pm | #

Ollie:

Perhaps I'm not explaining myself very well. I don't think so much in terms of what people deserve or some sort of "credit ranking" in heaven. Human beings are created to love and to be loved in return. The primary purpose of the human being is to know and love God (the Source of all Love). A sin is contrary to who God is, and therefore, contrary to union with Him (and perfect union with Him *is* heaven).

When a person commits a sin, therefore, it is he who commits the sin who is/will suffer greater than any human victim of the sin, simply because the very act of committing the sin cuts him off from God (at least, for grave sin), not because God somehow stops loving him, but because by committing the sin (and he must know it to be wrong and do it anyway to be guilty), he is rejecting God's love (and God will not force His love upon us).
Lisa | 04.25.04 - 6:55 pm | #

What I meant by "what you reap is what you sow" is simply that: God offers His love to us, and we can either take it or reject it. Either way, He will respect our decision and allow us to have what we choose.
Lisa | 04.25.04 - 6:56 pm | #

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it isn't so much that people deserve bad things if they do bad things, but rather, that human beings are creatures such that doing bad things denigrates who we are. We are better than these bad things that hurt us and those around us, and God sees this-- sees us for the people He created us to be-- sees us for the beautiful creatures we are and can be-- the love that we are capable of giving and receiving. And He calls after us because He knows and He can see what we can't yet-- the beautiful children that we are-- that we are created to be-- "Be who you are meant to be." And when we sin, we say, "No, I don't want your Love." And He chases after us, again and again, but when the time of our death comes, the decision that each of us has made is final, and He will respect that decision.
Lisa | 04.25.04 - 6:57 pm | #

"We forgive because we truly do not want to hurt those who have hurt us so that they may learn to help themselves." I think you were very close when you said this. Love is a choice--"I want your good," and to forgive is to see things as they really are-- to see the human being as the creature God created him to be and the beauty that is inherent in that creation, and to see the sin as only that which denigrates, or even destroys him.
Lisa | 04.25.04 - 6:57 pm | #

Lisa

I don't have a particular point, but several scraps of my perspective are humbly offered in response to the (NRSV) words of Jesus collected on my "weblog" example:

http://www.mentata.com/ldaphttp/examples/gospel/jesusblog.htm

Feel free to add your own.

Ollie

I live in Mary Esther, on the panhandle just west of Fort Walton Beach (more like southern Alabama than the Florida you probably know). I will be living here for just over two more months, then its time to go west young man.

Everyone

Unfortunately, the indices to my database somehow got corrupted so clicking the passage links on my site (e.g Matthew 5.3-12) will cause an indefinite hang then error. I will try to have this feature repaired sometime this week.

You are all intelligent, thoughtful people who actually make the idea of asynchronous dialogue worthwhile. Thanks.
mentata | Email | Homepage | 04.25.04 - 11:12 pm | #

i got this rad translation of the NT!

The fulfill the law thing is not how Joshua said it was at all it seems.

"Do not suppose that I have come to set aside the law or the prophets. I have not come to set them aside but to fill them up to the brim. For I solemnly say to you, heaven and earth would soone pass away the the dotting of an i or the crossing of a t from the law until it all becomes in force."

this is not an affirmation of the "jewish law." it is a filling of an emptiness. he is talking about law in general. he is the new law. this is a destruction of jewish law, but not a setting aside of all law. ie he didn't come to bring anarachy.

so, with this translation, we see a jesus who brings new law. not fulfilling the old law, but filling an emptiness to the brim!!!
ollie | 04.26.04 - 7:08 am | #

Sorry about the long absence and silence. I was away for the weekend. I'll have a look at the above posts and comment if it is warranted. As far as I can tell, I'm in complete agreement with Lisa, as I too am a happy adherent to the Roman Catholic Church. Thanks for the discussion, everyone.
Joshua Zelden | Email | 04.26.04 - 11:08 am | #

My site will be down for the next few hours, but if you check later here is my gift to Catholicism, the religion I was raised to:

http://www.mentata.com/ldaphttp/examples/gospel/retrieve_liturgy.htm

and here's my latest gift to everyone else:

http://www.mentata.com/news/23Apr04.htm

ta ta
mentata | Homepage | 04.26.04 - 4:43 pm | #

Ollie:

I guess even with this translation, I can see how this could support Joshua's explanation. What Christ "fills to the brim" isn't necessarily empty to begin with, but perhaps only filled partway. The people of God grow in their understanding of God through time, and the ancient Hebrews didn't have the understanding of God (and therefore justice) that we have (or should have) today.
Lisa | 04.26.04 - 6:53 pm | #

Take the "eye for an eye"/"turn the other cheek" example: the "eye for an eye" rule allows for, yes, retribution, but only so that there has been some acknowledgement that the victim has been wronged. Imagine if people had been told *not* "eye for an eye" but "turn the other cheek" without understanding why. In Matt. 19:8, Christ says, "For your hardness of heart, Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." There were a lot of things that were allowed in the ancient times because humans couldn't understand Divine justice...
Lisa | 04.26.04 - 6:54 pm | #

When Isaiah said that in God, justice and peace kiss, he wasn't kidding. Christ came along, not at the beginning, but *in the fullness of time*, when people were ready to understand and raises the standard. Not only shouldn't you do this, but you shouldn't do this, either. But why? *Because it is not love.*

The Jewish law wasn't completely wrong. The basic standards were there (don't steal, don't murder, etc, which Christ affirms in Matt. 19:18-19). But it wasn't complete, either, nor could it be, with the limited understanding of the people back then.
Lisa | 04.26.04 - 6:58 pm | #

Ooh, yeah. Sorry about the tense shift. :p

Ollie:

I emailed my friend (who is a theologian/ancient language scholar). He said that there are "no Aramaic forms of this verse extant," but in his next email, he said this:

"Knowledge of the Aramaic or Hebrew probably won't change anything at this
point. The meaning of Matt 5:17 does not really depend so much on the
specific language as the meaning of "fulfill" that is seen in any language. Clearly, Jesus is contrasting "fulfill" with "abolish" saying that the latter was not his intent. The word for "abolish" in this text in Greek (kataluo) could be translated "destroy" so whatever he meant by "fulfill" it clearly does not mean to abolish or destroy. Perhaps Romans 10:4 may throw light on Jesus' intent, "For Christ is the end of the law leading to righteousness for the one who believes." ...
Lisa | 04.26.04 - 7:26 pm | #

...

The word translated "end" here is telos which also means "purpose or goal." Interpreting Scripture with Scripture, this is much like Paul says in Galatians that the purpose of the law was to lead us to Christ. When a person believes on Christ, the purpose of the law is fulfilled in that person. Some of the Jewish law dropped by the wayside (i.e. ceremonial law) but the decalogue (10 com) are valid for all time because they reflect the character of God himself."
Lisa | 04.26.04 - 7:27 pm | #

Mentata:

I just looked at "the gift" you left us Catholics-- that's great! :) Personal question, if you don't mind answering: are you no longer Catholic?

Everyone:

I repeat what those have stated above-- the atmosphere in this discussion is very friendly, and I, too, appreciate that. :)
Lisa | 04.26.04 - 10:01 pm | #

Any notion that the people of the time weren't ready for the truth until Jesus, or that retribution was a fine form of justice but not yet the perfect for is a notion that God has progressively presented truth to man. like on a need to know basis like we see in spy movies.

"The people weren't ready for the truth yet."

And the Christians afterword? They get the full blessing of the "fulfilled law." So, We "Christians" are more advanced in the ways of justice and truth than any other tribe or people.
ollie | 04.27.04 - 4:06 am | #

that is sarcasm above. did God really reveal the truth over time? or did he change his mind?

to my thinking, it seems that there only can be one truth: that truth must be universal and eternal. Pehaps I am being too logical, but, you can't have a God that at one time approves of Retribution, but later changes his mind.

Forgiveness must have always been the right way. So it seems to me.

The other view, that God changed his mind, seems to me to be a deception.
ollie | 04.27.04 - 4:10 am | #

Who does it benefit to say that God changed his mind and that only Christians have received the complete truth of forgivness? It benefits the ego of the Christian who thinks himself to be the highest pinnacle of spiritual evolution. It is in these kind of ideas where the seeds for Hitler's biological master race originate.

I bet y'all Catholics are going to tell me about some doctrine that shows God didn't change his mind or only deliver the truth on a need to know basis. I look forward to evaluating it.
ollie | 04.27.04 - 4:13 am | #

Let's take our working example - Eye for an Eye view of Jewish justice is now replaced with Jesus' return the other cheek fulfillment. The truth of Revelation is never contradictory because as you posit, God does not change his mind. At first blush it may seem like a contradiction, but in truth it is merely a paradox, a seeming contradiction. If the truth that God reveals to us were simple and not mysterious, there would be no need for it to be revealed to us - we would have already discovered it.
Joshua Zelden | Email | 04.27.04 - 10:57 am | #

Now, back to Lisa's suggestion that we (humanity) were not quite ready for the full truth yet, and your (Ollie's) suggestion that such an assertion is an illustration of the blind arrogance and self-assuredness that lead to the atrocities of someone like Hitler --- To take an analogy of say the progressive understanding that physics has come to in terms of gravity and time and space. Newton posited a certain theory of gravity time and space that seemed to work very well and was very useful for 3 centuries. But then Einstein came in and demonstrated that Newton was a bit off, that time and space are relatives and not absolutes like Newton suggested. It is not arrogant or jingoistic to suggest that 20th Century man was ready for Einstein's truth about physics, where as 17th Century man was not yet ready.
Joshua Zelden | Email | 04.27.04 - 11:01 am | #

So theoretically we all understand the possibility of a certain theory or idea or philosophy that has to wait until its time is right. Now, we Christians don't believe that we are superior because we were ready for Christ's new more profound message, but rather that Christ's message is in itself superior becuase it allows a fuller (fulfillment) understanding of the truth. Everyone is now ready for it, not just those that profess to be Christians. Just as everyone is now ready for Einstein because we've had Newton. The Jewish law laid the foundation for Christianity as Newton laid the foundation for Einstein.
Joshua Zelden | Email | 04.27.04 - 11:07 am | #

Now back to justice vs. forgiveness. Yes, I agree as you say that forgiveness was always the best way. However, just as Einstein's theory of relativity without Newton's foundation would be incomprehensible, so too would forgiveness without the foundation of justice. Imagine a world in which forgiveness was freely given without a clear understanding of justice. We would all be treating each other visciously and cruelly with impunity. The very idea of forgiveness implies that something unjust was inflicted upon the foregiver.
Joshua Zelden | Email | 04.27.04 - 11:14 am | #

Lisa -

I was raised and confirmed Catholic, still frequently attend mass with my wife and kids, and will even be teaching music at a vacation bible school in a few weeks. That said, I should qualify my beliefs:

http://www.mentata.com/news/8Mar03.htm

I agree that it's hard to find a good constructive conversation on the tough issues of Christianity. On one forum I ended up squaring off with Ann Coulter (unknown to me at the time since she was using an alias). Now that woman is a nasty piece of work, if I can be forgiven for saying. Actually, according to

http://www.mentata.com/ds/retrieve/gospel/verse/GVLukeC17V03

her posture as an unapologetic Christian gives me every right to rebuke her (and GWB with all his blessed WMD). My motivation in a nutshell.
mentata | Email | Homepage | 04.27.04 - 11:20 am | #

Concerning the central topic of reconciling Jewish law with Christianity, the bottom line is that while Jesus did not call things like the Ten Commandments or the prophecies of Isaiah into question, he challenged much of the Jewish tradition that can be considered originating from man, including Moses and his waffling. As I said before, the "Bible" as we have it now post-dates Jesus, and you can't convince me that the resurrection fulfills the folkways of then contemporary Jerusalem or the justice of retribution any more than it endorses the misogyny of Nahum. Forgiveness is the opposite of justice.

Consider Jesus' nemeses: the scribes and Pharisees. Basically, scribes were lawyers and Pharisees were lawmakers in a theocracy within an empire. They *were* Jewish law, and I don't see Jesus in alignment. Morality predates human law, and the guidance you should follow is conscience, not Jerry Falwell. Just ask Jesus:

http://www.mentata.com/ds/retrieve/gospel/verse/GVLukeC12V57
mentata | Homepage | 04.27.04 - 11:38 am | #

One more note...

When considering translations, its important to remember the fluidity of language and its semantic specificity. Sometimes even our language itself changes to make Jesus mean what we want:

http://www.mentata.com/ds/retrieve/gospel/comment/CJBA45
mentata | Email | Homepage | 04.27.04 - 12:26 pm | #

Mentata - Earlier I made an annoying smart ass comment about trusting my instincts. You said...

"Morality predates human law, and the guidance you should follow is conscience, not Jerry Falwell."

...which is really what I was getting at. I really don't have a working understanding of the bible. I've enjoyed the gnostics like the gospel of Thomas more than anything, basically because it's almost solely quotes from Jesus. And he is an interesting guy.

I don't have a strong understanding of how the specifics gospels in the bible were chosen, but I know when something resonates with me and seems true and right.

For example, many "Christians" say that if your gay, your going to hell and being gay is a sin. But I've met many gay people, and my experience tells me that it is not a choice. That it's no more a choice than having blue eyes.
porker | Email | 04.27.04 - 1:30 pm | #

Josh, in and earlier section you referred to "queers" [Ollie's term] and said "Christ did not condone the actions of hookers and tax collectors, he simply loved them and invited them TO BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY."
This implies that being gay is simply a way of behaving that can be changed by choice. I am telling, it is crystal clear to me that this is incorrect! The Bible is just wrong here. And clearly more and more Christians are coming to terms with this, at least in the Episcopal and Methodist churches.
So this idea of behaving according to rules laid out in the bible seems like something you have to take with a grain of salt. It seems to me that man has had a heavy hand in adjusting the message in the bible to suite the needs of the Church. To keep the Church in power.
(btw - I've been quietly enjoying the thread. Good comments all around.)
porker | Email | 04.27.04 - 1:32 pm | #

Ollie

God?
Jesus?

My neighbor had a dog named Jesus.

use to take a leak on my lawn
at 7:30 am every morning
like clockwork

Surely that is not the jesus you are talking about?
Shibbydayday | 04.27.04 - 3:31 pm | #

Mentata wrote:
"Concerning the central topic of reconciling Jewish law with Christianity,... he challenged much of the Jewish tradition that can be considered originating from man... As I said before, the "Bible" as we have it now post-dates Jesus, and you can't convince me that the resurrection fulfills the folkways of then contemporary Jerusalem or the justice of retribution any more than it endorses the misogyny of Nahum. Forgiveness is the opposite of justice."

This is not an argument, but only an assertion and an announcement of closed mind. I have laid out an argument using the Newton-Einstein analogy. What is your response?
Joshua Zelden | Email | 04.27.04 - 4:08 pm | #

Mentata wrote:
"Consider Jesus' nemeses: the scribes and Pharisees. Basically, scribes were lawyers and Pharisees were lawmakers in a theocracy within an empire. They *were* Jewish law, and I don't see Jesus in alignment. Morality predates human law, and the guidance you should follow is conscience, not Jerry Falwell."

The Pharisees were the legalistic result of the Jewish law.
What does Jerry Falwell havd to do with any of this? That's a straw man. I don't align myself with him and never suggested that I did. He doesn't speak for Christians.
Joshua Zelden | Email | 04.27.04 - 4:10 pm | #

Mentata wrote:
"When considering translations, its important to remember the fluidity of language and its semantic specificity. Sometimes even our language itself changes to make Jesus mean what we want."

Are you referring to something specific in one of the above comments. Did a specific translation lead to a misunderstanding? As far as Matthew 5:17-18 goes, I don't see how we can interpret Christ's words as anything but what we've said. He is rejecting the mistaken idea that he has come to abolish the Jewish law and instead reconciling it to a higher level. I'll say it again, foregiveness makes no sense without a foundation of justice. Legalistic justice is vengence, justice with mercy and foregiveness is love.
Joshua Zelden | Email | 04.27.04 - 4:13 pm | #

Porker said:
"This implies that being gay is simply a way of behaving that can be changed by choice. I am telling, it is crystal clear to me that this is incorrect! The Bible is just wrong here. And clearly more and more Christians are coming to terms with this, at least in the Episcopal and Methodist churches."

Whether someone is born gay or not is irrelevant. Some people are born with a predisposition to alcohalism or to pedaphilia, that doesn't mean it is okay to indulge those natural urges. I don't judge the soul of gay people and I don't claim I know where they will spend eternity, but I do suggest that they might find fulfillment and eternal peace if they chose to remain chaste.
Joshua Zelden | Email | 04.27.04 - 4:16 pm | #

Mentata, a question - what are you suggesting when you say that the "bible" as we know it post dates Jesus? I don't disagree, but I'm not sure what implications you are trying to intimate.
Joshua Zelden | Email | 04.27.04 - 4:20 pm | #

Joshua,

Mentata does not appear to me to be close minded. You sure are quick on the attack for one who complains of being labelled or pigeon-holed.

Your Newton to Einstein theory reflect a common error made by fascist thinkers. You equate ethical rules with scientific progress. Basically you confuse politics and science. knowledge of physics of the sort you are talking about with einstein and newton is dependent on the state of knowledge and technological capabilities of the time. YEs, science can build upon itself.
Anonymous | 04.27.04 - 7:27 pm | #

However,

morality and custom do not progress in dependence on the capability of technologies.

The notion that Forgiveness is a new technological invention of Jesus, building on the previous discovery of Justice betrays your own time period. It betrays a "progressivist imagination," the halmark of modern scientific thinking.

We find notions of justice long before Jesus in hammurabis code, in Plato, everywhere.

Forgiveness may be an innovation of Jesus. I doubt it. Can anyone find a pre-Jesus articulation of the supremacy of forgiveness?
ollie | 04.27.04 - 7:31 pm | #

George Bush...
Goeogre-Bush-George-Bush-George-Bush
...SUV's,Gasoline...
You like to hunt and fish...
Geroge Bush like hunt, and fish..
Geoge Bush is good drugs are bad um kay.
George Bush so good he hasn't committed a felony in over 25 years.
George Bush is good
christ is in his heart
Don King | 04.27.04 - 7:45 pm | #

Mentata:

Thanks for the link. Sometimes it helps me to know where people are coming from.

Mentata, Ollie--

Mentata said:
"Concerning the central topic of reconciling Jewish law with Christianity, the bottom line is that while Jesus did not call things like the Ten Commandments or the prophecies of Isaiah into question"

But the Ten Commandments and the prophets were the *heart* of the Jewish law. Christ Himself said in Matt. 22:37-40, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets." ...
Lisa | 04.27.04 - 9:08 pm | #

And then, later, in Matt. 23:2-3, He said, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice." He was condemning not Jewish law, but the hypocritical way in which the Jewish authorities at that time practiced it. Church leaders then, as now, are all too human and may easily fall into sin, just as the rest of us. But their misuse or misapplication, or in the Jewish authorities' time, misunderstanding of the intent of the law, does not invalidate the law itself. ...
Lisa | 04.27.04 - 9:09 pm | #

Consider the Middle Ages and the grave abuses that took place then. The Church did not condone these-- the doctrine of the Church did not change (nor did these abuses make the doctrine wrong), but the Church is made up of humans-- human beings who have been affected by the Fall and who fall (forgive the pun) all too easily into sin.
Lisa | 04.27.04 - 9:10 pm | #

If you're considering the smaller details (such as ceremonial law) the main thrust of Jewish law, then I would agree with you that those are not the things Christ came to reaffirm. But I can't believe that these things are all that Jewish law was about. The Pentateuch only makes up the first five books. The Psalms, the Prophets' exhortations to return to God, the stories of King David, Ruth, and Esther all point to the same reality-- love. As Joshua stated before, the end (purpose) of the Jewish law was/is love; the Pharisees missed the point, and that was what Christ was condemning.
Lisa | 04.27.04 - 9:10 pm | #

Ollie said:

"Can anyone find a pre-Jesus articulation of the supremacy of forgiveness?"

Yes. King David refused to punish Saul, even after Saul tried to kill him.

I am not trying to say that pre-AD people were stupid or unable to think for themselves. But I do know that the people of God grows in Her understanding of who He is and how She should relate to Him. The Church knows more today than we did 500 years ago, 50 years ago, even 5 years ago, not because we're any smarter, not because more has been revealed to us, but simply because one person understands something here and passes it along, another person understands something there, and passes it along, etc. Dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants. I don't think this is so much our merit or incredible intelligence, but rather, the grace of God working in and through people. I think He does it slowly to give us time to process it all.
Lisa | 04.27.04 - 9:11 pm | #

Would it surprise you to know that the Jewish people in the time of Moses weren't even monotheistic? They understood Yahweh to be the "Lord of the Land," as there were other gods of other lands. By the time of King David, people understood that God didn't want them to worship other gods, not so much because other gods were evil (although, I should note that with certain "gods," people would end up doing terrible things for worship, such as child sacrifice), but more because these other gods simply didn't exist.
Lisa | 04.27.04 - 9:12 pm | #

Somewhat relevant from the O'Franken blog:

The Bible condemns homosexuality. Therefore, many extremists cite scripture when they push for laws that prevent gay marriage or otherwise seek to deny rights to gays.

It’s logically consistent. The only problem: The Bible suggests a lot of absolutely terrible things, many of which are just as offensive as a flat-out condemnation of gays.

If you read the Bible literally, you should also support:

Legalizing the beating of servants (Exodus 21:20-21)

Imposing the death penalty on anyone who works on Sunday (Exodus 31:15)

Silencing the womenfolk during church (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

Yet no one is advocating any of these things, because they’re patently horrible.
porker | Email | 04.27.04 - 9:28 pm | #

Continued...

We might also remember Moses endorsing the slaughter of the male children of the Midianites (Numbers 31:17-1). Back in the day, this was a legitimate way to handle your prisoners of war. But culture and society has come a long way since then; the Geneva Convention, among other things, strongly discourages the mass killing of children.

The point is, even "literalists" pick and choose from the Bible's many verses. So the question isn't whether you're for or against the Bible. It's how you read the Bible. And it's hard to read the Bible -- and particularly the New Testament -- without noticing its liberal themes: helping the poor, the weak, and the innocent. Restoring and creating justice. Seeking peace.
porker | Email | 04.27.04 - 9:28 pm | #

WHERE DOES IT SAY IN THE OLD LAW OR THE OLD JEWISH LAW THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW IS LOVE?????
ollie | 04.27.04 - 11:07 pm | #

Porker:

I'm not sure if all of what you posted was from that other blog, or if part of it was your own authorship, but I agree with what it says. On that interesting note,

Ollie:

"WHERE DOES IT SAY IN THE OLD LAW OR THE OLD JEWISH LAW THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW IS LOVE?????"

If this is what you are looking for, I don't think you're going to find it. But in the same vein as the post that Porker presented, there are themes all throughout the Old Testament of love. "helping the poor, the weak, and the innocent"-- widows, orphans and strangers are given preferential treatment in the old Jewish law...
Lisa | 04.28.04 - 12:35 am | #

And as I mentioned before, the stories of the Jewish people and their leaders-- the psalms of thanksgiving, praise, and love of King David, the wisdom of Solomon, the love that Ruth has for her step-mother, the Song of Songs (!), and every single exhortation of the Prophets point to love and joy and peace, begging Jerusalem as His Bride to come back to Him-- to come back home. I cited above what Christ Himself said about the Jewish law and the two great commandments of love. I am not sure what more I can give you.
Lisa | 04.28.04 - 12:36 am | #

Lisa,

thanks. there are many interesting issues flying around here.
ollie | 04.28.04 - 1:20 am | #

Wow. Stay away for a few hours and look what happens. Is it any wonder Ollie added a new posting to move on?

Porker:

Blessed are the persecuted; the kingdom of heaven is theirs. Homosexuality is akin to alcoholism and pedophilia as audio memory is to windsurfing or an addiction to Donkey Kong. Joshua is well off-target here, and his own closed mind is showing so I wouldn't sweat it. If you ever want to fully indulge in quoting the bible against itself, check this site:

http://www.evilbible.com/

although I caveat I won't personally endorse the perspective.
mentata | Email | Homepage | 04.28.04 - 2:28 am | #

Joshua:

I read the entire bible with an open mind, and have accepted what I will; that is my prerogitive. I am happy to submit that the concept of justice also predates Christianity, and I fully agree that forgiveness means nothing without it. However, as has already been pointed out, science does not equate ethics, much as military educators would like it to. Einstein did build on Newton, but I don't feel Jesus as the son of God almighty owes any particular debt to his forebears since he got truth straight from the source. When I say the bible post-dates Jesus, I'm implying that there are writings included and excluded based purely on human predilections. You ask me to answer your analogy (I did) now humor me and respond to my specific example: what recommends the book of Nahum? I suggest you read it aloud in its entirety at the dinner table so your whole family can feel the love. What you give to the performance may make up for the lack of citations from the messiah.
mentata | Email | Homepage | 04.28.04 - 2:51 am | #

Joshua (continued):

As for Jerry Falwell, perhaps he is not your spiritual leader but he clearly has others in his audience. You may reject him, but there may be some other in his stead to direct you. Presumably, the words of Jesus are there in black and white, and you have a potent human mind and heart capable of drawing your own conclusions. That is my singular point.

http://www.mentata.com/ldaphttp/examples/gospel/retrieve_chapters.
mentata | Email | Homepage | 04.28.04 - 2:52 am | #

Lisa:

The two commandments of Jesus were AFAIK new, a summation of the commandments of Moses into a beautifully concise essence. I have no grudge against traditional Jewish law, but re-read Numbers and tell me how much one stroke of one letter has changed for you personally. Considering what I've heard some priests and preachers profess, I'll admit that I take the "do as they say not as they do" line in regards to the pharisees with a grain of salt; not everything an arbitrary religious leader says is necessarily kosher. The Middle Ages was a dark time for the Catholic church, and I rejoice to see the values survived even if the political body was eternally perverted. As for King David, he did forgive a man just as he screwed a lot of women and killed a lot of people so I give credit where it's due.
mentata | Email | Homepage | 04.28.04 - 3:08 am | #

Lisa (continued):

In conclusion, I cannot thank you (and ollie) enough for your thoughtful and polite contributions. You'd be amazed how systematically my contributions have been shut down and blocked out in other "Christian" forums.
mentata | Email | Homepage | 04.28.04 - 3:09 am | #

Hi everyone,

Just a disclaimer: I just spent the night staying up to write my paper, so if I don't make sense or if I sound uncharitable, please let me know.

I'll be writing individual comments later (after I've had some sleep and can think more clearly) on the issues presented, but I thought I needed to say that I'm a little bit concerned with how everyone's been reading Joshua. It could very well be that because I'm on the "other side," I understand his arguments, and I will admit that his responses are more curt or blunt than mine. But I don't think he is or is trying to be close-minded-- at least, that's not what I see when I read his responses.
Lisa | 04.28.04 - 9:10 am | #

Also, I should have said this before; I didn't because I thought Joshua explained pretty well the Catholic position. But after reading the past few responses, I'm not sure that it's clear that I follow *all* the teachings of the Catholic Church, including that of homosexuality. Perhaps I can clarify the position. As Joshua said, we don't hate homosexual people. I certainly don't hate homosexual people-- I know they've been through a lot. Nor do I (nor does the Church) believe that homosexual people are guilty of sin for the feelings that they have. But the Church does believe those feelings to be disordered (and therefore, not to be followed). Everyone has disordered feelings at one point or another; I certainly know that feelings, even deep-rooted feelings (yes, even feelings so deep within you that you think they cannot possibly not be a part of who you are), can lie to me about the Truth.
Lisa | 04.28.04 - 9:11 am | #

I don't suggest repressing such feelings (that definitely doesn't work), but expressing them (in such an active lifestyle) won't bring homosexual people the joy and the peace that every human person desires. And this is all we want-- for the human being to be whole, joyful, and at peace.
Lisa | 04.28.04 - 9:12 am | #

Anonymous said:
"Mentata does not appear to me to be close minded. You sure are quick on the attack for one who complains of being labelled or pigeon-holed.

"Your Newton to Einstein theory reflect a common error made by fascist thinkers..."

Fair enough. I apologize to you, Mentata, for suggesting that you are closed-minded. I was referring to the specific statement that you emphatically would not be convinced that Christ came to fulfill the Jewish law.

As to the physics analogy, believe me I am no believe of science. Science has its purpose and limitations and can not be applied empirically to matters of the human heart. Analogies are helpful, but they are in the end only analogies and by definition eventually break down. Fascist? That cracks me up.
Joshua Zelden | Email | 04.28.04 - 11:26 am | #

Ollie said:
"However,

"morality and custom do not progress in dependence on the capability of technologies.

"The notion that Forgiveness is a new technological invention of Jesus, building on the previous discovery of Justice betrays your own time period. It betrays a "progressivist imagination," the halmark of modern scientific thinking...

"Forgiveness may be an innovation of Jesus. I doubt it..."

Again, I am no “modern scientific thinker.” Take the Newton-Einstein anology for what it’s worth. I just was trying to illustrate the hypothetical situation in which an idea has to wait for it’s time – once a proper foundation is laid. In all honesty Jesus is not remarkable for the things that he said. Very little of what he said was new. Maybe the combination or formulation of his teachings on the whole were new and different – especially his invitation to “love one another as I have loved you,” for in saying such, he is asking us to die for our fellow man.
Joshua Zelden | Email | 04.28.04 - 11:28 am | #

What makes Jesus remarkable is what he DID and who he IS. Jesus claimed to be divine and claimed that anyone who does not eat his flesh and drink his blood would have no life within him. He willingly died a horrible death on the cross and then conquered death by rising anew. These are all innovations and revelations. These are the things that empower humanity to actually live out the things he said, which before he came, were impossible to follow because of our own sin and weakness.
Joshua Zelden | Email | 04.28.04 - 11:31 am | #

Mentata,

Before I continue the discussion, I want to make it clear that I harbor no animosity towards you and I apologize if I have come accross as vitriolic or mean-spirited. I respect your well-informed and well-reasoned opinions and ask for your forgiveness if in my zeal and passion I have been uncharitable.
Joshua Zelden | Email | 04.28.04 - 11:48 am | #

Mentata said:
"Blessed are the persecuted; the kingdom of heaven is theirs. Homosexuality is akin to alcoholism and pedophilia as audio memory is to windsurfing or an addiction to Donkey Kong. Joshua is well off-target here, and his own closed mind is showing so I wouldn't sweat it."

In other words, homosexuality has no similarity whatsoever to alcoholism and pedophilia? Before I respond, I feel the need to back up a bit and speak about the notion of “sin” in general because I am thinking that I (and Lisa) have a different understanding of sin that Ollie, Mentata, Porker, Don King, Anonymous, etc…
Joshua Zelden | Email | 04.28.04 - 11:49 am | #

On the contrary sin is simply an action, thought or word that leads us away from our true higher purpose of communion with God. E very thing we do in this life either leads us away or towards God and the fullness of our being. Sins are the things that lead us away from God and bring loneliness, pain and restlessness. We call sins sins not because it’s fun to point out our own and others short comings, but because a failure to point out what is sinful and what is virtuous confuses us and leaves us to wollow in our loneliness, pain and restlessness. If we know what to avoid and what to strive for, we have a much better chance at contentment, peace and joy
Joshua Zelden | Email | 04.28.04 - 11:50 am | #

And finally, I do not think it is my place to actively seek out those people (as opposed to the objective sin) I see engaging in sin and pointing it out to them. First, I too am mired in short-comings and disordered affections and fallings. Second, such an admonition of my fellow man must be earned in trust and love by an existing relationship. However, as to the objective activities that are "sinful" I believe it is important to define and announce such activities as sin.
Joshua Zelden | Email | 04.28.04 - 11:53 am | #

This should have been posted BEFORE the comment starting with "On the contrary..."

When I suggest that homosexuality is a sin, I don’t mean it is an activity on the big list of no-no’s that God emblazoned on a stone tablet and anyone who engages in one of those no-no’s is an evil person and is condemned to live in Hell and should be accordingly shunned and labeled as inferior. That is a childish and truncated understanding of sin – an understanding that sadly is bandied about by many self-proclaimed Christians – and tends to polarize and alienate
Joshua Zelden | Email | 04.28.04 - 11:56 am | #

Now back to homosexuality being analogous to alcohalism and pedophilia...

Homosexuality analogous to Pedophilia:
This too unfortunately requires a bit of background, for I view both homosexuality and pedophilia as disordered sexual desire and activity. But to speak of disorder, I must first be clear on what ordered sexuality means. Because I believe that sex is the most profound, powerful, mwaningful and symbolically charged activity humans can engage, it requires a commensurate ordered structure to harness its good and life affirming qualities and avoid its dangerous and damaging capabilities.
Joshua Zelden | Email | 04.28.04 - 12:08 pm | #

I also posit as a premise that the opposite of love is use, therefore the aim of a structure of order for sex is to enculcate a loving mutually engaging action and to avoid an action that uses the other.
It is quite clear, I assume that pedophilia is dis-orded therefore because the predator uses the child for his own sexual gratification. This obviously scars the child, but it also scars the predator for he alienates himself from true human connection and blackens a part of his heart.
Now what about homosexuality? How is it disordered? After all there are no "predators," but rather two ostensibly consenting adults simply wanting to enjoy themselves...
Joshua Zelden | Email | 04.28.04 - 12:17 pm | #

Homosexuality is likewise disordered because it involves the mutual use of the participants. How so? What about heterosexuals on say, one night stands, aren't they using each other too? Or what about too committed homosexuals living in a loving exclusive relationship? I admit that there are obviously levels of use and situations that are closer to the proper ordered loving relationship appropriate for sex. However,... (something has come up, and I must go, but I will continue my thoughts later...)
Joshua Zelden | Email | 04.28.04 - 12:22 pm | #

Lisa said:

"I certainly know that feelings, even deep-rooted feelings (yes, even feelings so deep within you that you think they cannot possibly not be a part of who you are), can lie to me about the Truth."

Huh? How do you know this? Is it even knowable? You can tell me what you believe, but you cannot prove that there is a singular 'Truth."

"but expressing them (in such an active lifestyle) won't bring homosexual people the joy and the peace that every human person desires."

How do you know this? Are you gay? There is a lot of talk about open mindedness on this thread, but this is the stuff that seems unworkable. You seem to know the "Truth": my gay friend will never know "Joy". Your heart may tell you this is right (because you cannot prove it in any other way) mine say's your off. You should trust your deep feelings. They are who you are.
porker | Email | 04.28.04 - 1:35 pm | #

Josh said:

"What about heterosexuals on say, one night stands, aren't they using each other too?"

And straight people do this as well. Is it bad news, yes. One night stands = less joyful life.

"Or what about too committed homosexuals living in a loving exclusive relationship? I admit that there are obviously levels of use and situations that are closer to the proper ordered loving relationship appropriate for sex."

So if a Man and Woman are committed in a loving relationship, it's ok. A Man and Man or Woman and Woman in the same relationship is a sin.

That's your belief, and I don't think I can change it. But I'll refer to my previous post....
porker | Email | 04.28.04 - 1:38 pm | #

The Bible suggests a lot of absolutely terrible things, many of which are just as offensive as a flat-out condemnation of gays.
porker | Email | 04.28.04 - 1:39 pm | #

"Homosexuality is akin to alcoholism and pedophilia"

btw Josh - I follow your logic here, although you stopped short, but this particular comparison is highly offensive to us secular folks. I find it down right hateful.
porker | Email | 04.28.04 - 1:48 pm | #

Joshua

You a homo?
shibbydayday | 04.28.04 - 3:22 pm | #

I saw a snail
crawling on the edge
of a straight

Thats my dream
Thats my nightmare

Crawling, slithering
along the edge of straight razor
And surviving

Yet we must kill them
We must incinerate them
Cow after cow
Pig after pig
Village after village
Army after army
And they call me an assassin
What do you call it when the assassins accuse the assassin
They lie and we must be merciful to thoughs who lie
Colonel Kurtz | 04.28.04 - 3:39 pm | #

I love you all.

Here's some fascinating Isaac Asimov:

"Perhaps the most basic of the early splits among Christians was between those who held the teachings of Jesus to be merely a refinement of Judaism, and those who held them to be a radical change from Judaism. The former would uphold the supremacy of th Mosaic Law even for Christians; the latter would deny it."

"Matthew, the most Jewish of the evangelists, apparently believed in the supremacy of the Law..."
ollie | 04.28.04 - 4:16 pm | #

Joshua

I don't not see how the relationship between a husban-wife combination with the new "husban-husban" & "wife-wife" combo's (brought by legislation) differ in your "love vs use" paradigm.
(Off the subject) I find it hard to separate the def. of interdependence with your application of the word use(use being the opposite of love).

I think this discussion is great!
hamperboy20 | 04.28.04 - 11:10 pm | #

Joshua:

Your apology is accepted and if I've come across as vitriolic, I'm sorry too. The tongue came with the head. My habit of being flip tends to cause sparks, but my comment about your potent mind and heart was not arbitrary.

I don't believe forgiveness was impossible for Jesus; Lisa submitted an example from David. However, it was probably very difficult for people to accept this as God's way given the focus on sin and wrath they were getting from the top. You yourself may not be seeking out contemporary "sinners" to rebuke, but back then lashing, stoning, and crucifixion were a part of daily life. In word and deed, Jesus offered a separate way, and as the manifestation of divinity on Earth, he made this way acceptable as the true path of righteousness.
mentata | Email | Homepage | 04.29.04 - 5:29 pm | #

Mentata:

Small clarification-- "AFAIK new"-- what exactly did you mean by this?

"re-read Numbers and tell me how much one stroke of one letter has changed for you personally"

And I'm not quite sure what this means, either. Do you mean to ask in what way it affects my life? Or perhaps affects the fact that I believe that Christ did come to fulfill the Jewish tradition?

"As for King David, he did forgive a man just as he screwed a lot of women and killed a lot of people so I give credit where it's due."
Lisa | 04.29.04 - 8:35 pm | #

Correct me if I'm wrong (I haven't really read through 1 & 2 Samuel or 1 & 2 Kings lately), but he only slept with one woman out of wedlock and murdered one man. (Not that that's really "only," but it's not many.) If you're referring to the practice of polygamy, that was a social norm at the time, and I don't think that a person can be guilty of committing a sin that he doesn't know is wrong. And I know that he was involved in military action, but I do think that that's a bit different from murder.
Lisa | 04.29.04 - 8:36 pm | #

I think what draws me to King David is his capacity for love. He committed horrible atrocities, but his repentence is so absolute and his trust in the Lord so complete. So many psalms are attributed to him, and not only does he forgive Saul, but he forgave his son Absolom (who also tried to kill him multiple times) so completely that when he was notified of his murder, he wept and wished that he could have died in his place.
Lisa | 04.29.04 - 8:37 pm | #

I too used to wonder how the Old Testament could be reconciled with a loving God, but I've attended Bible studies in the Old Testament over the past few years that examined the Prophets. Numbers and Leviticus only make up two books of the Old Testament, and the Mosaic law was only a base for what was to come. The Jewish tradition was not based on only these, but also on the Prophets and the stories of the ancient Jewish people. The time at which Christ came was a revolutionary time for the Jewish people; just as there are now, there were different sects of Judaism, and the Jewish philophical discussions amongst the Pharisees were on the brink of discovering just what Christ revealed.
Lisa | 04.29.04 - 8:38 pm | #

"In word and deed, Jesus offered a separate way, and as the manifestation of divinity on Earth, he made this way acceptable as the true path of righteousness."

This is exactly it. I don't know what you meant to say about Numbers above, but I do know that the foundation-- the basics-- of Jewish tradition was what Christ came to fulfill.

Ollie quoted Isaac Asimov, who was close, but not quite accurate; the Council of Jerusalem questioned whether the Gentiles who wished to be Christian needed to become Jewish first (and therefore become circumcised and follow kosher rules), but the Church rejected this, understanding that the teachings of Christ point to the true purpose of the Mosaic law-- Love. This is the Church that we have today.
Lisa | 04.29.04 - 8:39 pm | #

"You'd be amazed how systematically my contributions have been shut down and blocked out in other "Christian" forums."

Unfortunately, I can believe that. Too many Christians don't know the whole point of Christianity (Love), and Luther's mantra of "sola scriptura" has led too many to a fundamentalist view of the Bible, which can only lead to confusion.
Lisa | 04.29.04 - 8:39 pm | #

Porker:

"How do you know this? Are you gay?"

No, I'm not, and I apologize if I misled you (and/or others) to believe so. But I have had such deep feelings (concerning something else) such that it is very difficult for me to see that they are not a part of who I am. But I know that they can't be, not only because the Church tells me that they cannot be, but also because life would not make sense if these feelings were right or even okay.
Lisa | 04.29.04 - 8:40 pm | #

"my gay friend will never know "Joy"."

Just to clarify-- I didn't say that your friend will never know joy. He/she can experience (and I do hope that he/she does) joy in other areas of his/her life, but engaging in homosexual activity cannot bring him/her peace.

"you cannot prove that there is a singular 'Truth."

What leads you to the conclusion that there is no singular Truth? You tell me that there is no singular Truth, but isn't that a statement of singular Truth in and of itself?
Lisa | 04.29.04 - 8:40 pm | #

Clarification (just in case anyone becomes confused): When I referred to life not making sense, I meant life in general, not just my own.
Lisa | 04.29.04 - 8:44 pm | #

"but engaging in homosexual activity cannot bring him/her peace."

First it was joy, now it's peace. This is your belief, that's all. I don't know where else to go with this....

"You tell me that there is no singular Truth, but isn't that a statement of singular Truth in and of itself?"

Nope. It's not. The implication is that there is no "Truth". Or many "Truths". But I make no claim either way.
porker | Email | 04.29.04 - 9:29 pm | #

All you can really say in the end is "This is wrong because the [Bible/My Church] says so, and I believe the [Bible/My Church]."

My point is that the Bible and the Church are clearly flawed. And in some cases you just need to trust yourself. Your deep feelings. Your conscience.

My hope is that the condemnation of Gays by Christians will ultimately go away. It's already happening in some faiths.
porker | Email | 04.29.04 - 9:35 pm | #

Isaac Asimov refers to "Early Christians." By this, I think he means groups other than the Jerusalem council. I know of some guys called the Gnostics who were kicked out of that council.

You say to Porker (what a bad name to chose),"You tell me that there is no singular Truth, but isn't that a statement of singular Truth in and of itself?"

The answer is no. This is a linguistic paradox that traps people all the time. I'm glad it came up. A mode of generalizing that became popular in the modern era assumes that all statements in some way apply to the nature of reality, or the way things are essentially. To say that there is no "singular truth" means just that. It does not mean that a Metaphysical rule of "singular truth" has been replaced by a new metaphysical rule of "no singular truth."
ollie | 04.29.04 - 9:53 pm | #

It means that someone is leaving the world of Metaphysical rules.

Its like you and porker are playing baseball and he gets rid of homeplate.
You say, "its homeplateless baseball". but its not baseball anymore.
ollie | 04.29.04 - 9:56 pm | #

Just as you need the assumption of the existence of a homeplate in order to play baseball, you need the assumption of Metaphysical rules in order to play "Truth." If you get rid of metaphysical rules, truth becomes something other than a rule. it becomes your best attempt to specifically describe what you know of the world around you.
ollie | 04.29.04 - 10:00 pm | #

Christians usually assume this modern meaning of truth in to Jesus's "I am the truth," to say that Jesus represent some kind of metaphysical ordering of the universe.

However, it is likely that Jesus meant truth in a different sense more akin to what we mean when we say "tell the truth," than what we mean when we say "Truth of the Universe."
ollie | 04.29.04 - 10:03 pm | #

It is a bad name.

From now on I am SmoothRider.
porker | Email | 04.29.04 - 10:51 pm | #

Look! It's me, Porker.
SmoothRider | Email | 04.29.04 - 10:56 pm | #

Sorry, I was called away earlier by a waking child.

Joshua (continued):

The take I present on morality is that it is personal and subjective. Even those ten commandments are loosely interpreted by modern thinking. "Thou shalt not kill", but what about self-defense? What about acts of warfare? What about capital punishment?

The presumption that there must be order and that one group of human minds can define that order for us, is not something I subscribe to. A desire to have order in human behavior strikes me as a personal predilection more than an absolute, even if it's a common pursuit. Again I defer to conscience, but for your own choices more than somebody else's. I think you would have to walk a mile at least in RuPaul's pumps before you can say you know his heart so completely.
mentata | Email | Homepage | 04.29.04 - 11:34 pm | #

There was in fact no commandment "Thou shalt not cornhole thy neighbor", but even if you scrape together the fragmentary evidence against the homosexual act from (OT) biblical writings, that doesn't convince me you have grounds to explain away what amounts to a very individual conclusion made by one who decides they cannot find peace or joy in what a majority expects of them.

Alcohol isn't just regarded as ordinary, it's a sacrement in some churches. Alcoholism is the passing of a physiological threshold that I think should be pitied more than persecuted. On the other hand, I don't think alcohol provides any excuse for what a person does under the influence. I would guess we've all felt the sting of gluttony in one thing or another, but where we draw the line should have more to do with real consequences than with the simple act of consuming fermented sugars.
mentata | Email | Homepage | 04.29.04 - 11:49 pm | #

As for the other analogy, pedophilia can absolutely be a selfish act and often does involve a scarred psychological history, but even here it's hard to make things black and white. Historians believe the virgin Mary was 14 years old when she conceived Jesus, as was the norm in her day. Different cultures have different folkways; it's the specifics of a situation that makes something sinful, not the secular legal definition of statuatory. Of course, Jesus does speak of special condemnation for those that vitiate children, so I would guess my high school drama instructor may not have a happy afterlife for all his liberties. I've found no such malice in the lifestyles of g