Hi Mel,

Don't know how I missed your post, I checked just the other day. Well,
you've switched tactics on me again, but that's OK, I'm up to it.

"mel" wrote in message m...
I'm glad you've answered in the affirmative concerning the value you place
on criticism. One reason I feel you are so frustrated with me is the
misunderstanding that I'm responding to the substance of your words instead
of the intent of them.

Well, yes, I guess that would be a misunderstanding. Silly me,
expecting that you might address what I write. Clearly, however, you
are omniscient, and can tell what my intent is in between the lines of
that inconsequential and inconvenient writing, that mere logos.

I have to admit, it's pretty amusing. I've met many a religious wacko
who claims this or that power, but none so far brazen enough to claim
mind-reading. Publicly no less. I could easily disprove it, but
where's the fun in that? Let's go on a little....

Go back and look at the very first response by
myself to you. I haven't been attempting to have a discourse with you
concerning the merits of what you've written but instead I've been
questioning the motivations behind them.

Indeed, I have noticed that you've carefully avoided answering any of
the questions that cast your positions in a poor light—pretty much all
of them. It's probably wise for you to go for the motivation angle now
that you mention it. Maybe that's why, in fashioning your incisive
questions about my motivations, a good deal of mirth has ensued,
intentional or not (npi)

A deeper since of critique, if you
will, than a mere recreational attempt to debate various points of views.

Deep. Yes. And that "debating points of view" thing—so tedious, so
exacting and overrated. You did the right thing.

I've called upon you time and time again to take that same energy you use to
criticize the external projections of others and turn it internally towards
yourself. Introspect is probably the purest and highest form of
criticism one can subject oneself to. You ought to try it sometime.

Ah, the high gear of prophet/therapist/omniscient mind-reader mode.
You've got some big balls, Mel, to lecture someone you don't know at
all about their need for introspection. I mean HUGE cahoonas. You're
my hero.

snip

snip para. detailing the newsflash that people have differing
opinions. As if.

Critics such as yourself have claimed it is anti-Semitic. It's too violent.
It's too narrow and rigid of an interpretation of Jesus' death. A death some
would argue isn't rooted in historical fact. However, many of us believing
Christians think there is a deeper reason behind these attacks. Please note,
that last statement wasn't concerning the validity of the arguments of the
critics but instead the motivations behind them.

I like how you do that "you-us" thing, with the "us" [you] identified
as the (plural no less) believing Christians, while I float among a
sea of mere critics. (I forget, what circle of hell was that?).

And there's that "deep" stuff again, here "reasons behind these
attacks". Not mere criticism anymore, mind you. Now they are attacks.
OK, gotcha.

So basically, no one gets to disagree with you without turning into a
(gasp) critic. And critics are not to be dialogued with, do I have
that right? They are to be questioned on motive and ignored with
respect to their prima facie arguments. Do you do that with family
too? Traffic cops? How's that working out?

I addressed every question you gave me with regards to motivation even
though they were inappropriate. Do you recall any I did not answer? At
what point might my words have meaning? Your level of ipsation is
admirable.

Arguing and attempting
to substantiate the validity of the critic's arguments isn't how one would
respectfully pay attention to what I have written here. It would, in
essence, be ignoring it as you have accused me of time and time again.

Oh, oh, I've got it, I understand the game now. How's this (be gentle
though, it's my first try):

"Well, Mel, that's cute. You've gone and made some sort of argument.
But I want to know *why* you asked that. What was your motivation? You
see, true spirit-filled Christians like me look way beyond trumping
argumentation with meaningless observations about motive; oh yea, we
ask for the motivations for *that*. It's like, our amp goes to 11. It
produces an inner calmness too, and is good for the complexion, you
should try it sometime."

OK, how'd I do?


Mel Gibson was posed the following question. What do you think is the real
reason the critics have been so condemning of his movie?

I feel his reply was right on the mark.

"Things really haven't changed much in 2000 years. Those that were afraid
of Jesus then are still afraid of him today."

You're right to point this out, Mel. I too am appalled at the
interviewer's lack of a spine to let Gibson get away with such a
facile answer. It's rather convenient isn't it, he didn't have to
answer so much as one criticism. It's brilliant! Say, that technique
would appeal to other people I know....

Now you might say afraid of what? What about Jesus that could produce fear
in men?

Not sure I want to equate Gibson or Gibson's movie with Jesus just
yet, but if you say so....

snip Galatians 5.11 and I Cor 1.18-25 on the cross being a stumbling
block

Here is where I feel the real source of your frustration originates.

I am *so* glad you're getting to this because I thought the source of
my frustration was just that you offered dialogue, came to a venue
that is specifically, hierarchically dialogue format, but really
offered monologue--on different topics even. So I'm all ears....


Paul
said the cross is a stumbling block to the intelligent of our age.

Did he say his own age or our age?

The
word he used in the Greek text for stumbling block and for offensive in
Galatians is the Greek word "skandalon" and it's where we get the word
scandal . Paul said I will not remove the scandal of the cross.

Not that it matters, but where did he say that? I didn't read it in
the quote above.

Oh, and thanks for the Greek lesson. I'm uncomfortable defining an
ancient Greek word by its English cognate 2000 years later (think
French "false friends"), but go right ahead.

Why do critics hate this story? Make a note of this... the cross has ALWAYS
been scandalous.

Do you have anyone in mind? You lump all critics together as if they
all had the same objections or as if they share the same motives—but
that's patently untrue. I'm sure you have a good reason for the
stereotype, right? I haven't heard of anyone particularly hating this
story. By this I presume you mean Paul's little spiel, but you might
mean the Golgotha story by that. I've never met anyone upset by it per
se. So who are you thinking of?

In fact I would contend that whether the cross was being
taught accurately and correctly is whether or not natural unregenerate man
is offended by it. Alot of people today want to remove the scandal from the
gospel.

I notice that Paul above is careful to make a clear distinction
between the Jews and the Greeks/Gentiles. The cross is a "skandalon"
to the Jews, and foolishness to Greeks/Gentiles. You seem to be
placing everyone here ("a lot of people today" etc.) in the role of
Paul's Jews. Is that a reasonable inference from Paul?

One more question on your take of Paul. Is the cross literal, or is it
metaphorical? If the latter, does it stand for the death of Jesus, or
Jesus' conquering death, or the body on the cross, or the wounds on
the body, or something else?

Now there's two chief ways people are doing this.
One is what I call rank liberal theology. snip
Our temptation [#2 apparently] isn't to try to get rid of the cross. Our temptation is to
clean it up snip

That is probably because we, myself included, have never
seen a man dying on a cross. The early Christians did. They understood
that you can't make a cross pretty.

So, are we to understand that the earliest Christian portrayals of the
cross were not "pretty?" I'm a little unsure what you mean. The
opposite I guess: dirty? But in what way I haven't a clue.

Something a few years ago happened on the campus of Duke University. snip story about people there being uncomfortable with anything but a pretty cross by the chapel

Well, what did you expect from a school that was originally named
after the godhead but changed it to appease big tobacco? ...and who
graduated Richard Nixon and Danny Ferry? ...and who got taken by a
"Rothschild"? [with snickers from Dean's school]

You've got to understand that when the early Christians went out as
missionaries and preached a savior crucified that was scandalous.
To a Jew who knew in the OT that anyone who hangs on a tree is cursed person
you're trying to get the Jew to believe in a cursed god.

Well, to a Jew the problem is not that he's cursed, it's that he's *a*
god at all. Yaweh was the only god.... You know, the English "scandal"
doesn't quite capture what you are describing here, does it?

That is an
ultimate oxymoron.

How exactly is that an oxymoron? Perhaps we have different
dictionaries...or you come from the Alanis Morrisette school of irony.

To the Roman who believed in power and might you are
presenting a dead god and that is the ultimate oxymoron.

Sort of like Hercules you mean? or Mithras? or Apollonius? Do you mean
dying gods, even savior gods, were not common among Romans before
Christ? I must've studied the wrong books on Roman religion and
mythology: can you suggest some better ones?

A Jew thinks a
cursed god is absurd

A Jew might find it odd for a relative cult to worship a god who had
been crucified. More odd yet that anyone in a Jewish context would
talk of a god besides Yaweh. But skandalon more simply means a trap in
which bait was placed, no? Is it not the case here that Paul simply
holds up the cross as bait in his (rhetorical) trap, pointing out that
the law of Moses made no difference with respect to Christian
soteriology, since that's what he's doing in context? At least, that's
how I always read it. In this sense it's kind of hard not to take
Paul's use of the cross as anti-Semitic, not unlike modern Jews using
a swastika to accuse someone of being a Nazi, using a symbol to remind
them of their crime. Paul uses the cross to accuse them of deicide;
when they take the bait and try to justify themselves, Paul says it
makes no difference, they can't be justified thus.

Man, it's a good thing you clarified this....

and a Roman thinks a dead god is absurd and everyone
thinks a weak servant god is absurd. snip 1 Cor 2:2 " I
decided I would speak only of Jesus Christ and his death on the cross"

The gospel would not be compromised for the sake of the scandalized. Don't
you dare preach a Jesus without the wounds.

So, you equate the cross Paul talks of with Christ's wounds, right?
There is, according to you, a body on the cross Paul talks of. I'm
curious: does he ever explain it that way? When is the first
representation of the cross with a body on it in the history of
Christian art?

I have to ask yet again: at what point does a portrayal of those
wounds become pornographic? Or do you deny that is possible? I just
want to know your standard here.

snip There's at least three reasons the critics are offended by
the cross.

snip observations about god being holy and, therefore, wrathful

You have to understand the problem of sin is the
biggest problem God faced. Much bigger than creation. All God had to do for
creation was speak the word but he couldn't just speak a word and get rid of
sin. The problem of sin couldn't be spoken...it had to be suffered. So God
poured out his wrath on his innocent son who had been offered as a
substitute for us. That's not God being vengeful... that's God being loving
without compromising his holiness. The cross makes us face a God that is so
much more holy than we want to think he is and it makes us face the fact we
are not nearly as holy as we want to think we are.

Funny, I remember you in an earlier thread making a big to-do about
the agency of Jesus' death. You objected that Romans and Jews had
nothing to do with it, that Jesus himself gave it up freely.
Suideicide is a noble cause, no doubt, but here you talk of a father
god who "poured out his wrath on his innocent son". Is that an
expression you got from the text too?

The second reason the cross is scandalous is it exposes the filthiness of
man. snip beginning of mini-sermon

if you want to talk about an offensive verse in the
bible there is a verse in the OT that says when you do your best and you are
as righteous as you know how to be your righteousness is filthy rags to God
because he's that holy.

Just curious: where is that?

snip Romans 3:22-23" ..there's no
difference for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" snip
"What do you mean there's no difference? I'm not a mass murderer or a drug
pusher or a child molester. What do you mean there's no difference between
me and people like that? I think I've been good enough!!"

What you've got to understand is when we talk like that it's because we
judge each other by comparing ourselves to each other instead of comparing
ourselves to God.

Wow, that's amazing. And here I thought Paul had been talking about
the Law of Moses as the standard. Good thing I have you here to
correct Paul and tell me how it's each other (incorrect) and God
(correct) who is the standard here.

For a minute there, I was afraid that you'd been taken by Paul's "no
difference" and used it out of context for your own purposes. Quoting
verses out of context is what we call "prooftexting". It seemed like
the purpose of your prooftexting was pedestrian—and very
modern—fundamentalist notions of salvation.

Of course we know that couldn't be true, but Paul answers the question
"with reference to what?" regarding "no difference" all around that
text you quoted: the Law of Moses is what it refers to. You on the
other hand, make it a suspenseful question and finally tell us, in
good pulpit style, that Paul was misinformed. Whew, am I glad to know
that.

snip silly story about a pastor Stearns re-writing the Bible

snip Ephesians 2 and some pretty funny interpretations about salvation by grace

You're whole post boils down to a salvation by grace alone sermon.
Pretty run-of-the mill type at that, not well understood or presented,
and contextually laughable. You've made my day.

OK, here's the fun part. Tell me: do you think that in Mel Gibson's
theology you will be saved? What about Mel Gibson: will he be saved in
your soteriology? Remember, Gibson is a Catholic and a fundamental one
at that (which fundamentalism is not in the same ballpark as your
Evangelical Fundamentalism).

I would really like to understand how you can take an image of Jesus
that is central to Fundamental, medieval Catholic soteriology and make
it part of Evangelical Protestant soteriology, the latter of which
firmly rejected the former long ago.

"Those who are ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it." Of
course, you can always just ignore the question—after all it's just
mere logos—and prattle on about motive....

snip...the final reason the cross is scandalous.

snip silly evangelical sermon, three-step program, and abundant
condescension

The bible says in Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved,
through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is a gift of God---not by
works, so that no one can boast."

Multiple choice: when Paul says "works" here, he is referring to:
A) The Law of Moses
B) Catholic Sacraments necessary for salvation
C) "Effort" in general

If you did not pick the correct answer, "A", then you must be able to
show me an instance where Paul talks of grace vs. works *outside* the
context of the Law of Moses. You can do it, Mel, we're all counting on
you.

This is where I question your motivations the most. Your statement of
"faith without works is dead" not only scares me but it reveals your intent
to mislead men.

Yeah, help me out with this Mel, my motivations are probably all
screwed up. Does St. James scare you too? That's who said those words,
not me, at James 2.26. That's the Bible, Mel. True, Luther didn't care
for James much either because he (James) just wasn't down with the
sola fide reading of Paul that Luther favored. I suppose I could quote
Paul himself, or more importantly Jesus (who, strangely, doesn't have
any of these sola fide statements) on the efficacy of doing good, even
the necessity of it for salvation, but shoot, their motivations are
just as messed up as mine, it seems.

It reveals your fear and it reveals your inability to find
a rational explanation for the saving grace of God.

I'll leave the rational explanations to Paul, who, in the hand of
imbeciles, is like Derrida in the hands of English professors who have
no French: misunderstandings abound. But go on Mel, I know you have a
firm grasp on Paul and his Greek...

snip another mini-sermon, replete with Sunday-school level children's
analogy by a Moodyite

We do not take the scandal out of the gospels no matter how much the critics
hate it.

Shouldn't we consider changing that "we" to an "I" by now, Mel? And I
don't know about "the" critics, but your critics offer as a skandalon
the logos, which you are tripping up on all the time (npi) or
ignoring.

snip Let me teach
you something about that word I think is kind of neat.

Allow me to return the didactic favor and augment that number by two,
to make three words: hubris, arrogance, and sanctimoniousness. Shall I
define them for you? No? Well, you're probably right, I have nothing
to teach you about them.

snip more pedestrian misreadings Think about who was
the first trophy of the cross. It was a crucified criminal. snip inconsequential preaching All he could do was
turn in faith and ask the man on the cross to save him.....and the man on
the cross did. snip more Greekless admiration for the word "scandal"

I must've missed that part: where does it say Jesus saved that man? My
text, in Luke only, says that Jesus says the sympathetic criminal
would be with him in paradise that day. Not saved, not in heaven, not
even further than that day. My motivations sure are inconvenient—they
make me read a text that is not the same as yours at all. Can you read
me a better-motivated text? (This is the part where I take comfort
that it's not only my logos that you ignore.)

What you have to understand is.... that thief on the cross.... that's me.
And it's you, too. And the day you understand that is the day you'll thank
God for the scandal of the cross. Don't talk to me about lack of respect
for the gospel. Look within yourself...first.

You've tagged me there, Mel, I'm a sinner in the hands of an angry
god. Your respect for the gospels, your critical and incisive readings
that demonstrate your respect, your command of Greek, your ability to
listen, the way you answer all objections as reasonably as you can,
your straightforwardness and lack of guile, your lack of
condescension, your learning, and...well shucks, just everything about
you makes me want to become one of those "true" Christians you speak
of.

I'll not accept any explanation less than that you, Mel, you yourself,
are the cross.

snip inconsequential story about Jewish convert and the cross

Mel Gibson was right. They feared him 2000 years ago and they fear him still
today because if this story is true you are going to have to meet him at the
cross. And that's why the critics hate this story....... and that's why I
love it.

You either listen to a lot of Paul Harvey or some really really bad
preaching....

One final note, your frustration was prophesied by Isaiah in 29:14.... the
verse which Paul quotes in 1 Cor 1: 18-25

Ah, and since you portray yourself as the expert on this, where does
that put you?

Mel, it's become obvious that this is just an exercise for you at
sermonizing, and that you are not really listening to me or anyone
else. I'm willing to continue, but unless other members of the NG are
interested, can I interest you in continuing this monologue via e-mail
so as not to fill up everyone else's webspace with what has become
something just between you and me? That's just my suspicion, if others
piped up and said let us hear more about the angels on a pinhead, then
I'll be happy to continue here. Otherwise, consider a change of venue.

Yours,
H