Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Gregg Germain
 
Posts: n/a
Default this ought to get everybody fired up....

mel wrote:


Irrelevant atheist discussion snipped


: To answer your question honestly, and hopefully very carefully, I would have
: to say the reason I started this thread knowing full well it might "fire"
: some people up is because when you love the story of the salvation of man as
: much as I do you hope you can share it with someone who will fall in love
: with it too.


Ah. Your goal was to prosyletize (sp) - even though you admitted
that it might rile some people.

and your discussion of the table in your starting note was merely a
facade..a ploy.

I see.

thanks for the honest response


--- Gregg

My woodworking projects:


Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm


"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

------------ And now a word from our sponsor ----------------------
For a quality mail server, try SurgeMail, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. Run a million users on a standard
PC running NT or Unix without running out of power, use the best!
---- See
http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgemail.htm ----
  #42   Report Post  
mel
 
Posts: n/a
Default this ought to get everybody fired up....

"Proselytize" is a good word and one I'll accept. "Admittedly" is also one
that I'll not only accept but embrace. I'm not ashamed of this thread nor
where it's led. Your use of the word "ploy" contradicts the "admittedly"
implication does it not?

Here... just for you...

I willingly admit that I initiated a thread in rec.woodworking with an "on
topical" query about a table, and the techniques that may have been used in
it's construction, from a controversial movie depicting of the crucifixion
of Jesus , knowing full well that the subject matter of replied posts would
quickly deviate from wood working to religion. I not only initiated but
welcomed the opportunity to share a belief I hold dear in a public forum in
hopes that someone else may willingly decide to hold dear the same belief.


2000+ years and civilization still wants to make this into something to
which an accusation can be formed out of...

My how we've grown...


  #43   Report Post  
Gregg Germain
 
Posts: n/a
Default this ought to get everybody fired up....

mel wrote:
: "Proselytize" is a good word and one I'll accept. "Admittedly" is also one
: that I'll not only accept but embrace. I'm not ashamed of this thread nor
: where it's led. Your use of the word "ploy" contradicts the "admittedly"
: implication does it not?

It does not. The words apply to two different statements of yours.


The word "ploy" relates to your pretense that the topic is about
table construction.

The "admittedly" relates to yoru clearly admitted attempt to
prosyletize.


: Here... just for you...

: I willingly admit that I initiated a thread in rec.woodworking with an "on
: topical" query about a table, and the techniques that may have been used in
: it's construction, from a controversial movie depicting of the crucifixion
: of Jesus , knowing full well that the subject matter of replied posts would
: quickly deviate from wood working to religion.

Not only did you know it would quickly deviate - you admit fully
that you WANTED it to deviate.

: I not only initiated but
: welcomed the opportunity to share a belief I hold dear in a public forum in
: hopes that someone else may willingly decide to hold dear the same belief.

Amusing - you use and now twice ADMIT that you used - a facade, a
ploy, almost-but-not-quite a lie, to try and preach what you
consider to be the truth.

The hypocrisy is astonishing.


: 2000+ years and civilization still wants to make this into something to
: which an accusation can be formed out of...

20 seconds analysis of your starting note displayed hypocrisy - has
nothing to do with religion.


: My how we've grown...

Well some of us have. Others need to do a lot of honest self-analysis

--


--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

  #44   Report Post  
mel
 
Posts: n/a
Default this ought to get everybody fired up....

You're right Gregg. How astute of you. You've caught on to my brilliant
scheme to deceive by admitting I was sure the thread would head where I
wanted it to go. Nothing gets past you does it? What was it? Was it my
subject where I stated I knew this thread would be controversial? Was it in
my first paragraph where I stated that based on past threads relating to
Christmas that I not only believed but was sure this might turn into a
discussion on religion? Was it my mistake to follow the discussion of the
table with a transparent attempt to steer the discussion in the direction I
wanted? I am truly impressed with your deductive reasoning skills.

By the way Gregg, by definition, hypocrisy means to claim a belief one
doesn't subscribe to and in order for you to make that call you would have
had to read what I've proclaimed is my belief... and if you had.... you
would have found that I willfully admit to a total unworthiness of the grace
of God. And you claim hypocrisy here by pointing out in fact that in your
opinion I appear to be just that??


  #45   Report Post  
Hylourgos
 
Posts: n/a
Default this ought to get everybody fired up....

Hi Mikey,

At the risk of jumping in between two godless fighting heathen (note
tongue deep in cheek), I have to admit you do, especially in your
first post, seem awfully sensitive about it. I believe you that your
remarks are rather general and have little to do with this thread, but
you didn't explain that very clearly--your post could be taken as a
response that veers wildly from the topic at hand (just look at Mel's
responses for a prime example). It's not irrational for Larry and
other readers to expect you to maintain a hierarchical sequence in a
thread's logic.

Atheists are not so far removed from public discourse on religion, the
way I see it. In one sense, religion is a worldview, a set of beliefs
in how the universe works. In this sense, everyone has a religion. I
think it's a healthy way for all beliefs, be they atheistic, theistic
or even passionophilists, to be able to engage in dialogue upon a
common foundation.

I know nothing about you personally, so I'll presume you have good
reasons for reacting the way you do. But finding common ground and
keeping to reasonable discourse with those who feel differently can
make for a lot of interesting, educational discussions. For that alone
they are worth it--even if they do end up heated sometimes.

My 2˘
H




"Mikey Darden" wrote in message . com...
Larry Bud wipes his nose, snickered and said, "Ooooooh! it's my turn to say
something!" and wrote:
As a fellow Atheist, I have to ask you how exactly you're "subjected"

to this discussion? You're free not to read the thread.

Well, in your anxious stupor to get a "Me, too" post in, maybe you forgot to
read what I wrote right after that sentence. I just knew someone was going
to spout what you did. I can't believe it took this long for that response.
Your decision to only snip and include what you did does not complete the
context of that thought. The text I'm speaking of is:

"For those of you without a life beyond the computer, I'm not only speaking
of this particular thread or any other. I know where the "next message" and
"delete" tabs are and know how to use them. I actually, unlike some of you,
know how to just avoid these topics by not clicking on them at all.
Therefore, you can drop the "You don't have to read it." comments. Those
statements are as childish and unsubstantial as most religious discussions
end up being."

Apparently, you think that what is typed here is only meant for your little
computerized world. I was speaking of more than internet land when I made
that statement. Go back and read the rest of the post to see what I mean.

My post was just a point of information; not a lecture, or a view changing
argument for one side or the other. Just a statement to say that no matter
where you are talking or typing with others, it seems that the subjects of
beliefs and religions creep in and reinforces why I ended up believing (or
not believing, however you want to look at it) what I do. Sometimes, I
choose to get involved, but sometimes it's just a drive-by and you get
sucked into the vortex.

I, like yourself, can find the rare, rational discussion of religion
informative and interesting. However, it seems that religious discussion and
rationality end up being oxymoronic. It also seems that there are always
vastly diametric opinions and beliefs, even among people of similar
religions and beliefs. It's just too hard to stay involved in those
conversations for long. The majority of people are just too emotional to
maintain a rational, level headed banter. One thing I have noticed that
folks of all beliefs can agree on....Convert the Atheist! He needs to think
like we do.

Politics and abortion complete the trifecta of things that are hard to talk
about and hard not to talk about. I just try to avoid those topics as much
as possible. I think we all could sit in my workshop and share a beer or
iced tea and all enjoy each other's company for and unlimited amount of
time. Bring up one of the topics above and somebody will be fighting in
under three minutes.

Mikey


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/2003



  #46   Report Post  
Gregg Germain
 
Posts: n/a
Default this ought to get everybody fired up....

mel wrote:
: You're right Gregg. How astute of you. You've caught on to my brilliant
: scheme to deceive by admitting I was sure the thread would head where I
: wanted it to go. Nothing gets past you does it? What was it? Was it my
: subject where I stated I knew this thread would be controversial? Was it in
: my first paragraph where I stated that based on past threads relating to
: Christmas that I not only believed but was sure this might turn into a
: discussion on religion? Was it my mistake to follow the discussion of the
: table with a transparent attempt to steer the discussion in the direction I
: wanted? I am truly impressed with your deductive reasoning skills.

No deduction required - you admission of it was all I needed.



: By the way Gregg, by definition, hypocrisy means to claim a belief one
: doesn't subscribe to and in order for you to make that call you would have
: had to read what I've proclaimed is my belief... and if you had.... you
: would have found that I willfully admit to a total unworthiness of the grace
: of God.

One of the largest non sequiturs I've seen in a long time.

bye...

--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

  #47   Report Post  
Mikey Darden
 
Posts: n/a
Default this ought to get everybody fired up....

I do not single out atheists in my attempt here to answer this question. I
merely bring them up because of the timeliness of a conversation I had with
my wife concerning a man she works with who states he is one. We were
discussing his tendency to avoid conversations that require discussing a
belief system. Something all men do....atheist or not.


It is not something all men do. You and several other men here do not seem
to be having a problem. The real problem is that people (notice I said
people and not just men or women) that feel like you do think that people
like me avoid those conversations because we either have nothing intelligent
to contribute, are too fearful of the subject matter, or we're just
uninformed heathens that need converting. It's not always just the subject
of religion that drives me away from a conversation. It's what it does to
people. Like I said before; you, I, and a group of others could sit in your
workshop, have a beer or other beverage, talk about fishing, woodworking,
our wives lousy cooking, etc. and have a grand time. The minute someone like
yourself find that angle to introduce religion into the conversation, the
fun of the evening is over, possibly with some fighting. Even people of
strong beliefs get uncomfortable when you start evangelizing. I just get
tired of hearing about it over, and over, and over...

....because when you love the story of the salvation of man as
much as I do you hope you can share it with someone who will fall in love
with it too.


This statement further drives home my thoughts above. It's great that you
are so passionate about your faith, but most of us, atheist or not, just
want you to keep it to yourself in conversations that do not include
religion or your beliefs. My Dad is a machinist and is passionate about his
work. I enjoy talking to him about his work every once in a while to get
updated and hear about any special projects on which he's working. However,
I do not want to hear about all the aches and pains of the things that he
hates about his job. A little bit is fine, but not when it consumes every
conversation. I care about my Dad and his work, but there's a point that I
have to say, "Dad...we're fishing and trying to enjoy ourselves. Can you not
get yourself and me agitated by talking about the bull**** at work?" He
usually responds, "You're right...I'm doing it again, aren't I?" My Mom
married him and has to listen to that all the time...I do not.

The thing is, most religious fanatics, zealots, or what ever you want to
call yourselves never reach that point of knowing when, where, and with whom
it's time to either stop the religion talk or not bring it up at all. I have
strong ideas about why I'm an atheist, but they are my belief and ideas. I
do not feel the need to share, spread the word, or turn someone around to my
way of thinking. That is the pinnacle of most religion; to convert and tell
as many as you can to think like you do. That's a bold, self-centered, and
quite obnoxiously haughty way to lead life. This is one of the things I just
could never agree with of organized religion. You are all wrong and all
going to hell! :-)

Sometimes I do avoid the subject of religion on principal. I have a close
friend that loves professional wrestling and the Jerry Springer Show.
Whenever he decides to get fired up about either subject, I either tell him
to shut the **** up or I walk away from the conversation. Those are just
topics I do not care for at all. Nothing about fears, beliefs, mysticism,
etc.; I just do not like to talk about those things. Multi-level marketing
is another one of those topics. As is religion, so could all of you zealots
stop finding ways to bring up your faith and convert me? I respect your
decisions and do not try to sway you otherwise. Why can't you respect mine
and stop trying to tell me I'm wrong and why? Over and over and over and...

Mikey


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/2003


  #48   Report Post  
Mikey Darden
 
Posts: n/a
Default this ought to get everybody fired up....

I have to admit you do, especially in your
first post, seem awfully sensitive about it. I believe you that your
remarks are rather general and have little to do with this thread, but
you didn't explain that very clearly--


H, you are right, but it is only because voice inflection and facial
expressions cannot be perceived unless we all have webcams. And I'm
definitely not going to type those damned smiles after every sentence (even
though I did on a recent post). That said, I did lash out at Larry for the
"you don't have to read it" comment. I clearly made reference to that in my
original post, but knew someone would still tell me to avoid reading. I
typically do avoid reading or at least responding to subjects that I feel I
can not contribute to or have no interest. Some people can't do that at all
and respond just to respond. It's the old "ME, TOO!" mentality.

This time I had a wild hair and responded with what I thought was a general
point of information. However, as we all know, when the subject is religion
or other controversies, the vortex sucks you in and everyone ends up in a
****ing contest. I've tried to respond as friendly and articulate as
possibly when my initial instincts could lead me to say, "Shut up and ****
off, Moron!" I've tried the nice guy route, so far. We'll see how it goes
from here. Maybe it's just time for me to bow out and watch from the wings.
Maybe we'll all end up talking about tearing up wood again.

C Ya,
Mikey


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/2003


  #49   Report Post  
mel
 
Posts: n/a
Default this ought to get everybody fired up....

You bring up a valid point about knowing when to shut up and I past it
awhile back. Your sentiments are valid concerning people forcing you to
endure topics you do not wish to be involved in....and no, this isn't
leading into me telling you that you have a choice whether to read this or
not. We both know you do but that's not the point you're trying to make is
it? It's about coexistence right?

How do we achieve this without compromising?


  #50   Report Post  
mel
 
Posts: n/a
Default this ought to get everybody fired up....

One of the largest non sequiturs I've seen in a long time--


By Joav!! I think he's got it!!




  #51   Report Post  
Don
 
Posts: n/a
Default this ought to get everybody fired up....

Bravo!, Well spoken.

Born again atheist and proud of it,
Don
  #52   Report Post  
Hylourgos
 
Posts: n/a
Default this ought to get everybody fired up....

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
  #53   Report Post  
mel
 
Posts: n/a
Default this ought to get everybody fired up....

I'm going to bow out of this, metaphorically speaking, "school yard brawl"
that we have been engaging in. I'm even going to let it appear that you're
well on your way to becoming the victor. You present yourself well and a
bystander could easily see you present yourself as one with authority.

In keeping with the metaphor of a "school yard brawl" it's time for you,
with your superior intellect and insight, to deliver the winning blow to a
defiant opponent.

How does one secure their salvation?


  #54   Report Post  
Hylourgos
 
Posts: n/a
Default this ought to get everybody fired up....

Dear Mel,

I'm going to bow out of this,...


If only we could trust you Mel, if only....

snip... I'm even going to let it appear that you're
well on your way to becoming the victor.


Why, that's very Christian of you Mel. Tell me: is that the "true"
Christian, or just the regular kind who can afford to be patronizing?

In keeping with the metaphor of a "school yard brawl" it's time for you,
with your superior intellect and insight, to deliver the winning blow to a
defiant opponent.

How does one secure their salvation?


You just couldn't resist throwing one more underhanded punch on the
way out, could you? No matter....

I'll be happy to tell you how *you* can secure salvation, Mel. But
first you'll have to take an oath that you genuinely want me to lead
you to salvation, that your request is sincere and that you'll listen
to what I say. To be sure you're honest about it, since you have not
been very honest in this thread, that oath must be upon the lives of
your wife and children, if any.

One thing I *can* tell you in advance about this topic is that context
is everything. Not everyone is ready at any time or place. Even Jesus
was silent about some things. Appropriateness is paramount. And, sad
though you may be to hear it, the rec.ww is not an appropriate forum.
It would be sacrilege Mel.

I'll await your decision....

Now, since you feel free to ignore my post and ask another question,
I'll return the favor, numbered duodecimately. Most of these are just
repetitions, questions you've ignored. But they've piled up and are
becoming an embarrassment because you've left them unanswered. See
what you can do to help your cause:

1) Do you think that in Mel Gibson's theology you will be saved? What
about Mel Gibson: will he be saved according to the soteriology of
your beliefs?

2) Is it possible to exaggerate Jesus' suffering, or to turn it into a
pornographic fascination with sadomasochistic torture, blood, and
punishment? If yes, where do you draw the line? By what criteria do
you distinguish a portrayal of suffering from a sadomasochistic
titillation?

3) The Gospels, in the section known as the Passion, spend about 2% of
the text on the physical abuse Jesus endured; Gibson's The Passion is
anywhere from 25% to 75%. Is Gibson's choice to amplify that suffering
(not only in quantity, but in quality also) a better choice?

4) In addition to the paucity of material in MML&J on Jesus' beating,
there are at least three texts that contradict the brutality of
Gibson's vision: Jesus' speech to the women at Lk. 23.28-31; the
soldiers coveting Jesus' clothing at Jn. 19.23-24; and the resurrected
Jesus' spear wound easily distinguished at Jn. 20.24-27, all discussed
above. Are there any texts that argue FOR Gibson's amplification?

5) Do you encourage children to see a film where the camera's focus is
on a man being flogged until the gashes cover most of his body?

6) Is an accurate portrayal of Satan an important issue? What do we
know of Satan from the texts? Does that information accord with the
film's portrayal?

7) Hutton Gibson has denied that the holocaust was anywhere near as
bad as is generally acknowledged. Do you think Mel Gibson should
disavow his father's sentiments?

8) Who killed Jesus, exactly?

9) In what way is Gibson's The Passion different from a passion play?
Are there similarities that would make a responsible person hesitate?

10) Are "true" Christians expected to make good use of their brains
and learn basic principles of reasoning? Does that include
establishing criteria for what makes a "true" Christian before the
fact, before you call others not-"true" Christians?

11) Are "true" Christians expected to be honest? Is it honest to
pretend interest in one topic only as an excuse to proselytize? Is it
honest to ignore another's questions but expect yours to be
considered? Is it honest to assume you have something to teach others
whom you do not know? How about that passive-aggressive tendency, is
that honest? Is pretending to understand Greek honest?

12) The balance between salvation by works and/or grace is encumbered
by many texts that appear at odds, and these have been the source of
major divisions within Christian theology, with brilliant thinkers
weighing in on both sides. Is it honest to choose one side and only
quote the texts ("prooftexting") that support your position, ignoring
all those that do not?

Reason may not lead us all the way to the truth, but as Robert Graves
noted, "facts are not truths, they merely say to untruths, you are not
in accordance with the facts." Thank god we are able to distinguish
the truth from your more egregious fallacies, which have become
scandalous.

In all humility,
H
  #55   Report Post  
mel
 
Posts: n/a
Default this ought to get everybody fired up....

By not answering my question you've re-enforced my belief you are nothing
more than an antagonistic coward with a malicious intent to impugn anyone
who has the courage to voice their beliefs.

1) Do you think that in Mel Gibson's theology you will be saved?
I cannot honestly answer this question since I truly do not know his
theology but if you simply mean do I believe the crucifixion of Jesus was
adequate to secure my salvation then I would have to answer yes... I do,
provided I accept Jesus as lord of my life, make a faith proclamation and am
baptized.

What about Mel Gibson: will he be saved according to the soteriology of
your beliefs? I am not sitting in a position to say. If you are asking me
if I believe that he could be then yes..but I do not know his relationship
with Jesus nor would I presume to guess.

2) Is it possible to exaggerate Jesus' suffering, or to turn it into a
pornographic fascination with sadomasochistic torture, blood, and
punishment? yes

If yes, where do you draw the line? in my heart.

By what criteria do you distinguish a portrayal of suffering from a
sadomasochistic
titillation? I haven't felt the need to form such a criteria but if I did I
would have to first attempt to determine the intent of the portrayer.

3) The Gospels, in the section known as the Passion, spend about 2% of
the text on the physical abuse Jesus endured; Gibson's The Passion is
anywhere from 25% to 75%. Is Gibson's choice to amplify that suffering
(not only in quantity, but in quality also) a better choice? I think this is
something we each have to decide for ourselves. Exactly how severe the
beatings were is a subject that we can only speculate about. I see the
portrayal as an attempt to make the viewer aware of the determination of
Christ. According to the text he was flogged then he was crucified. How bad
was it? Not bad enough to keep him from following through with the will of
God but bad enough it eventually killed him. That was what I got from it.
You see something else and unless you've developed the ability to read minds
then your opinion of the intent is speculation also.

4) In addition to the paucity of material in MML&J on Jesus' beating,
there are at least three texts that contradict the brutality of
Gibson's vision:

hardly rock solid contradictions

Jesus' speech to the women at Lk. 23.28-31 hardly what I would call a
speech. Depending on the english translation you choose, you are talking
about roughly 74 words, 8 sentences.


the soldiers coveting Jesus' clothing at Jn. 19.23-24;

your implication here is that his clothes wouldn't be worth enough to value
as usable garments but this is again speculation as to why they wanted the
garments. Are you implying that soldiers have never kept gruesome
souvenirs?.

and the resurrected
Jesus' spear wound easily distinguished at Jn. 20.24-27, all discussed
above.

He has just been resurrected.. brought back from the dead. Seriously... the
conditions of his wounds is really kind of missing the point here isn't it?
You tell me why the wounds were left in the first place.

Are there any texts that argue FOR Gibson's amplification? none other than
he was flogged and he was crucified. Here is where i want to interject
something. On one level I feel Mel Gibson over exaggerated the scourging.
But I feel his motives were to show Christ's determination. This is after
all a movie. It shouldn't be viewed as 100% factual and as far as I know a
claim as such has never been made. It's an interpretation. The text
doesn't mention Christ defiantly standing back up after collapsing as if to
say "I came to do more. I came to die." (my interpretation of the
interpretation..before you go off)

5) Do you encourage children to see a film where the camera's focus is
on a man being flogged until the gashes cover most of his body? I took my 13
year old daughter to see it after my wife and I had first viewed it for
ourselves. I didn't take my 10 year old. Every parent should make their
own determination. It is not for me to tell them what to do with their
children nor should I rely on other's to tell me what to do with mine.

6) Is an accurate portrayal of Satan an important issue? yes

What do we know of Satan from the texts? he is evil and hates God

Does that information accord with the film's portrayal? all we know from the
text is he was present and I say "he" simply because we tend to refer to
Satan in a gender specific sense. If it make you more comfortable we could
say she but I'd bet neither would apply.

7) Hutton Gibson has denied that the holocaust was anywhere near as
bad as is generally acknowledged. Do you think Mel Gibson should
disavow his father's sentiments? not any more than I think your son, if you
have/had one, should disavow your sentiments concerning the suffering of
Christ for my sins.

8) Who killed Jesus, exactly?

pick one-
1.according to the literal interpretation of, "..into your hands I commit my
spirit" I would have to say nobody.
2. God decided he must die.
3. mankind through our sinful nature


9) In what way is Gibson's The Passion different from a passion play? I have
never seen a passion play so I can't answer this.
Are there similarities that would make a responsible person hesitate? this
doesn't make sense.. your use of the word "responsible" doesn't provide the
ability to discern "responsible for what?"

10) Are "true" Christians expected to make good use of their brains
and learn basic principles of reasoning?

you are either a Christian or you're not. Wearing the moniker "Christian"
doesn't make you one.... yes... we are expected to learn not only basic
principles of reasoning but we are also expected to mature in wisdom. We
are also expected to seek first the kingdom of God so I would have to say we
are expected to learn and apply all reasoning skills to seek and find the
will of God as it applies to his kingdom.

Does that include
establishing criteria for what makes a "true" Christian before the
fact, before you call others not-"true" Christians?

huh? I'll assume you ask if we should establish a criteria which we use to
differentiate between a Christian and a non-Christian.... yes

11) Are "true" Christians expected to be honest?

if you ask are you expected to become perfect once you become a Christian
then I would answer no. If you could have become perfect then the
crucifixion wouldn't have been necessary. If you ask should you try to
avoid situations that damage your credibility then I'd have to answer yes.
Is this always possible.. no. What you have to understand is salvation
doesn't free us from our sinful natures... it frees us from the punishment
deserved by our sinful natures.

Is it honest to pretend interest in one topic only as an excuse to
proselytize?

Is this your question? Can you see inside me and know whether or not this
was pretense? Yes I admit I wanted to share the story I love but I also
would have enjoyed and welcomed any discussion of the techniques used in the
construction of the table used in the movie. My query about a table used in
a movie and my obvious desire to discuss the symbolism of the table as it
related to the story is hardly what one could justify calling a false
pretense...... unless of course you are an antagonist and a coward.

Is it honest to ignore another's questions but expect yours to be
considered?

This isn't a question of honesty... it's a question of interest. If you view
it as dishonesty then maybe you're not just a coward but a dishonest one at
that.

Is it honest to assume you have something to teach others whom you do not
know?

Once again...this isn't a question of honesty and if it were would your
assumptions be dishonest?

How about that passive-aggressive tendency, is
that honest?

is this really relevant and isn't using this question in fact
passive-aggression?

Is pretending to understand Greek honest?

there has been no pretense. all Greek references I have made are easily
found in reference bibles of various forms. I've never proclaimed to be
fluent in Greek but what I have referenced I do know to be true and is all
easily verified.

12) The balance between salvation by works and/or grace is encumbered
by many texts that appear at odds, and these have been the source of
major divisions within Christian theology, with brilliant thinkers
weighing in on both sides. Is it honest to choose one side and only
quote the texts ("prooftexting") that support your position, ignoring
all those that do not?

if that is what one does then I would have to honestly answer no.. it is
not. Nor is it honest to claim that someone is guilty of it when you don't
have the guts to do anything but talk about how that is wrong or that isn't
correctly following the text yet you don't have the courage enough to say
what is your beliefs and how the text supports it. Nor is it honest to
feign participation in a discussion when really all you do is spew
implication after implication in effort to impugn.

I've challenged you about as impassively as I know how to stand up and
answer this question. How does man secure his salvation?
Not because I need your answer for I already have my own beliefs but because
I don't think you are anything more than an antagonistic coward who gets his
kicks out of impugning the beliefs of others and you don't have the courage
to voice your own. I have more respect for the atheists who have
contributed to this thread. I don't agree with them but I respect them.....
more than you.










  #56   Report Post  
Hylourgos
 
Posts: n/a
Default this ought to get everybody fired up....

(Prefatory appeal: can you please use a standard reply mode that
retains the hierarchy of the dialogue? Whenever you post it looks like
all remarks are on the same level....)

"mel" wrote in message m...

By not answering my question


I did answer your question. You just didn't like the answer. Cry on
your own time.

You're killing me here. What's this, the 8th post or so of yours in
our sub-thread? It's the *first* one where you've addressed the
questions I posed. Not a very impressive record, and a bit late to be
playing the martyr. Under the circumstances, Mel, you getting huffy
about someone not answering a question is a bit like Harbor Freight
being miffed that Lee Valley sold a sub-par plane...

you've re-enforced my belief you are nothing
more than an antagonistic coward with a malicious intent to impugn anyone
who has the courage to voice their beliefs.


Oooo, ouch, Mel, you're such a devastating name-caller. And you repeat
it to such novel effect later in the post, several times. You must
like this phrase. "Voicing your belief", is that what you call it?
Huh...and I thought it was just inappropriate proselytizing, which of
course takes no courage at all. I mean really, courage on an anonymous
NG? One more boner I'll let stand....

OK, let's check your answers:

1) Do you think that in Mel Gibson's theology you will be saved?
snip circumlocution
What about Mel Gibson: will he be saved according to the soteriology of
your beliefs?


I am not sitting in a position to say. If you are asking me
if I believe that he could be then yes..but I do not know his relationship
with Jesus nor would I presume to guess.


Wow, that's courage, Mel? What a load of crap! Here, I'll make the
question easier for you:

Will a fundamentalist Catholic be saved according to Evangelical
Protestant doctrine? Will you be saved according to the doctrines of a
fundamentalist Catholic?

C'mon Mel, you're big on courage, so spit it out (but given your
record I won't hold my breath that you'll answer this
straightforwardly, if at all...).

Batting 0/1

2) Is it possible to exaggerate Jesus' suffering, or to turn it into a
pornographic fascination with sadomasochistic torture, blood, and
punishment? yes

If yes, where do you draw the line? in my heart.

By what criteria do you distinguish a portrayal of suffering from a
sadomasochistic
titillation? I haven't felt the need to form such a criteria but if I did I
would have to first attempt to determine the intent of the portrayer.

An honest answer, thank you. Now was that so hard?

I would offer my opinion that drawing the line here is not best done
"in the heart" nor by looking at "the intent of the portrayer", not
only because the latter is near impossible and the former rather
nebulous, but because the material is right there to be judged, and
with clear indications of how to judge such material by using your
mind. But if you were to prefer your methods then I say more power to
you.

3) The Gospels, in the section known as the Passion, spend about 2% of
the text on the physical abuse Jesus endured; Gibson's The Passion is
anywhere from 25% to 75%. Is Gibson's choice to amplify that suffering
(not only in quantity, but in quality also) a better choice? I think this is
something we each have to decide for ourselves. Exactly how severe the
beatings were is a subject that we can only speculate about. I see the
portrayal as an attempt to make the viewer aware of the determination of
Christ. According to the text he was flogged then he was crucified. How bad
was it? Not bad enough to keep him from following through with the will of
God


....nor significant enough for MML&J to elaborate it. And some of them
actually saw it, no?

but bad enough it eventually killed him. snip


Are you saying that the flogging killed him? Luke certainly doesn't
paint that picture....

I too see Gibson's Passion as illustrating Jesus' determination.

That's 2/3 on a "reasonable discourse" level. Great....

4) In addition to the paucity of material in MML&J on Jesus' beating,
there are at least three texts that contradict the brutality of
Gibson's vision:

hardly rock solid contradictions


I guess you were too busy avoiding the question to read my caveat the
first time. I admitted they each could be argued, but they were 1) not
unreasonable arguments, 2 [and most importantly]) based on the text,
and 3) absent any counter arguments from the text that I could find. I
asked if you could find any counter arguments in the text. There
followed the usual silence.

Jesus' speech to the women at Lk. 23.28-31 hardly what I would call a
speech. Depending on the english translation you choose, you are talking
about roughly 74 words, 8 sentences.


A short speech is still a speech, and that's beside the point. The
question is, why not include it in the film? It's because the speech
would not have had any verisimilitude if Gibson's Jesus tried to
deliver it. It contradicts Gibson's Jesus because Gibson's Jesus is
not the Jesus of MML&J.

the soldiers coveting Jesus' clothing at Jn. 19.23-24;

your implication here is that his clothes wouldn't be worth enough to value
as usable garments but this is again speculation as to why they wanted the
garments. Are you implying that soldiers have never kept gruesome
souvenirs?.


Not a bad point, although I have my doubts that Roman soldiers
would've anticipated the fame of this crucifixee enough to want to
take his bloody torn rags. Moreover, the text in John clearly makes an
issue of the *quality* of Jesus' undergarment: it "was seamless, woven
in one piece from neck to hem, so they said to one another, 'Instead
of tearing it, let's throw dice to decide...'"

and the resurrected
Jesus' spear wound easily distinguished at Jn. 20.24-27, all discussed
above.

He has just been resurrected.. brought back from the dead. Seriously... the
conditions of his wounds is really kind of missing the point here isn't it?
You tell me why the wounds were left in the first place.


You've lost me here. I don't understand your questions. The first
(conditions of the wounds missing the point?): It doesn't miss *my*
point, which is that one significant wound (spear in side) Jesus uses
as a means of identification for the disciples could not possibly have
been distinguished from the (hundreds of?) bloody gashes on Caviezel's
character's body. The second (why the wounds were left in the first
place) makes me wonder which wounds you are talking about. I carefully
distinguished the wounds I was talking about. Why both sets "were
left" (???) seems obvious, so I don't understand what you're getting
at. Could you explain?

Are there any texts that argue FOR Gibson's amplification? none other than
he was flogged and he was crucified. Here is where i want to interject
something. On one level I feel Mel Gibson over exaggerated the scourging.
But I feel his motives were to show Christ's determination. This is after
all a movie. It shouldn't be viewed as 100% factual and as far as I know a
claim as such has never been made. It's an interpretation. The text
doesn't mention Christ defiantly standing back up after collapsing as if to
say "I came to do more. I came to die." (my interpretation of the
interpretation..before you go off)


A most reasonable comment. However, I have heard Gibson claim that "it
follows the scriptures" in two interviews (and I've only seen three),
and most every one of my posts is an objection that Gibson's Passion
does NOT follow the text, so it's reasonable to assume that this
sub-thread is considering that aspect.

The ways it does not follow the text are significant in my opinion,
which is based not only on the text but on the abundant scholarship
about the medieval image of Jesus and sadomasochism, in addition to
its anti-semitic influence. If you're unconcerned about that, if you
got what you got from it and liked Mel's interpretation, fine.

that's 3/4 questions discussed reasonably. We're on a roll now....

5) Do you encourage children to see a film where the camera's focus is
on a man being flogged until the gashes cover most of his body? I took my 13
year old daughter to see it after my wife and I had first viewed it for
ourselves. I didn't take my 10 year old. Every parent should make their
own determination. It is not for me to tell them what to do with their
children nor should I rely on other's to tell me what to do with mine.


I disagree with your decision 100% and feel sorry for your 13 yr-old,
but I agree with your reasoning 100%.

4/5

6) Is an accurate portrayal of Satan an important issue? yes

What do we know of Satan from the texts? he is evil and hates God

Does that information accord with the film's portrayal? all we know from the
text is he was present and I say "he" simply because we tend to refer to
Satan in a gender specific sense. If it make you more comfortable we could
say she but I'd bet neither would apply.


Well, the text always says "he," if I remember correctly.
Cinematically I loved Gibson's female Satan, but theologically as well
as socially it's troubling. The portrayal of Satan in the West since
the New Testament has been long, varied and of great importance. If
you're interested you might read Elaine Pagels "Origin of Satan: The
New Testament Origins of Christianity's Demonization of Jews, Pagans
and Heretics". Of obvious interest to debates on the portrayal of
Satan in Gibson's film.

5/6

7) Hutton Gibson has denied that the holocaust was anywhere near as
bad as is generally acknowledged. Do you think Mel Gibson should
disavow his father's sentiments? not any more than I think your son, if you
have/had one, should disavow your sentiments concerning the suffering of
Christ for my sins.


If my sentiments were historically hateful and obviously untrue, and
especially if he were about to make a big film that broached the same
topic, I hope to god that I had taught my son to respect the truth
well enough to disavow my sentiments, and I can't understand why
anyone else wouldn't want him to also.

Does familial loyalty count more than the truth? Hell, it's not even a
question of that, since Gibson could disavow his father's hurtful
lie-propagation and still maintain filial loyalty. The sad conclusion
seems to be that Mel Gibson agrees with his father. And if you don't
see how that could affect the movie he made, and why it worries both
Jews and anti-anti-Semites, then you're historically ignorant.

6/7 (...but credit given on this mostly for trying. The try was not
particularly reasonable)

8) Who killed Jesus, exactly?

pick one-
1.according to the literal interpretation of, "..into your hands I commit my
spirit" I would have to say nobody.
2. God decided he must die.
3. mankind through our sinful nature


Hey, you left out the Jews, MML&J's pick. You also left out Jesus,
your first pick in an earlier post. At any rate your answer is the
same kind of answer students will sometimes try on a test. But the
question asks *you* to pick.

Nevertheless, 7/8 (I usually don't give my students credit for those
answers)

9) In what way is Gibson's The Passion different from a passion play? I have
never seen a passion play so I can't answer this.


Very honest. Very straightforward--and from which you might be able to
guess why I was aggravated by your presumption when you first tried to
answer this question.

Are there similarities that would make a responsible person hesitate? this
doesn't make sense.. your use of the word "responsible" doesn't provide the
ability to discern "responsible for what?"


It's a common question, Mel, don't pretend I'm being arcane. In the
same sense we use the phrase, "responsible adult". Given that passion
plays were the cause of horrific acts of anti-Semitism, a responsible
person would neither patronize nor encourage them, and a courageous
responsible person would resist them.

It's pretty straightforward.

Nevertheless, if your intent (tongue deep in cheek) was a serious
question, 8/9

10) Are "true" Christians expected to make good use of their brains
and learn basic principles of reasoning?

you are either a Christian or you're not. Wearing the moniker "Christian"
doesn't make you one....


[assuming your point is because of the "true" adjective in the
question. If not I have no earthly idea what you're point is:] Who
first made that distinction? Oh yea--it was you: "You would have us
believe that anyone calling themselves a Christian must in fact
represent all true Christians." (Date: 2004-03-16 16:02:03 PST).

yes... we are expected to learn not only basic
principles of reasoning but we are also expected to mature in wisdom. We
are also expected to seek first the kingdom of God so I would have to say we
are expected to learn and apply all reasoning skills to seek and find the
will of God as it applies to his kingdom.


Great. You're learning.

Does that include
establishing criteria for what makes a "true" Christian before the
fact, before you call others not-"true" Christians?

huh? I'll assume you ask if we should establish a criteria which we use to
differentiate between a Christian and a non-Christian.... yes


Yea, I don't think I stuttered on that one. Good. 9/10, although I
would caution you, since you were the one who began making that
distinction, to make your criteria clear before calling anyone else
that (i.e., not a "true" Christian). The vast majority of those who do
so use fallacious reasoning. I'm not saying you have, I'm just warning
you.

11) Are "true" Christians expected to be honest?

if you ask are you expected to become perfect once you become a Christian
then I would answer no. If you could have become perfect then the
crucifixion wouldn't have been necessary. If you ask should you try to
avoid situations that damage your credibility then I'd have to answer yes.
Is this always possible.. no. What you have to understand is salvation
doesn't free us from our sinful natures... it frees us from the punishment
deserved by our sinful natures.


When someone has to circumlocute around a simple question, they either
don't understand it or they won't answer it straightforwardly because
they know how bad it makes them look.

In the hopes that it is the former circumstance for you, I'll point
out two things about that question. 1) honesty is NOT the same thing
as perfection (I mean what I say, and I said honest), 2) "expectation"
means, etymologically, too look out for, to hope for. It is not a
question of a status once something is attained.

You would also gain much goodwill if you should excise the phrase
"What you have to understand..." from your vocabulary, which you often
use. You are condescending enough as is, don't make it worse.

Oh, and we are still punished for our sinful natures. Even if god is
not the punisher, we still pay a price for doing and saying stupid
things. Which brings me to the next question...

Is it honest to pretend interest in one topic only as an excuse to
proselytize?

Is this your question?


No, I believe that Jesus himself hacked into my computer to ask you
this.

Can you see inside me and know whether or not this
was pretense?


Even if I could, I would not. I could care less what's "inside" you,
I'll leave the inside to god. I did, however, read your sub-thread
with Gregg (keep reading...)

Yes I admit I wanted to share the story I love but I also
would have enjoyed and welcomed any discussion of the techniques used in the
construction of the table snip some convenient reasoning that ignores the relationship of table thread to religion sub-thread, then more courageous name-calling


In a similar vein, but with a bit more candor, here's what you said in
Gregg's thread:

"I started this thread knowing full well it might "fire" some people
up is because when you love the story of the salvation of man as much
as I do you hope you can share it with someone..."

"...knowing full well that the subject matter of replied posts would
quickly deviate from wood working to religion. I not only initiated
but welcomed the opportunity to share a belief I hold dear in a public
forum..."

I know you argued your case with Gregg, mostly on the basis of your
initial subject heading, but you ended up looking foolish in that
exchange. A "hypocrite" originally meant an actor. You seem, and not
only to me, to have exploited the WW topic, however interested in it
you were, in order to further your other goal. You were acting.

That is a dissimulation you may be able to justify, but most
non-Christians are offended when they get a whiff of that Willy
Loman/Og Mandino bull****--I'm telling you this as a favor to your
proselytizing. Just come out and say what you want to say, then show
some respect for what the responses indicate--just common sense. On
the Wreck, if you were to do that, you would be met with an
overwhelming majority asking you NOT to proselyte on it for several
reasons, the most prominent one being that it is not the appropriate
public forum.

If you can't accede to the wishes of your fellow Wreckers, they in
turn will not respect you. Perhaps that's why you felt the need to be
sneaky about it? Regardless, it is not an honest tactic and if you
don't readily see that then I doubt there's much I can say to convince
you.

Is it honest to ignore another's questions but expect yours to be
considered?

This isn't a question of honesty... it's a question of interest.


What, your interests can't be honest/dishonest? As if.

If you view
it as dishonesty then maybe you're not just a coward but a dishonest one at
that.


That non-sequitur is a bit glaring. And expecting unequal
relationships with others is clearly dishonest, especially in a
Christian context: "do to others what you would have them do to you,
for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"--so it's pretty fundamental
Christianity. Again, if you don't readily see that then I doubt
there's much I can say to convince you.

Is it honest to assume you have something to teach others whom you do not
know?

Once again...this isn't a question of honesty and if it were would your
assumptions be dishonest?


Of course assumptions can be honest and dishonest. If you assume the
above (that you have something to teach someone you don't know) then
you're arrogant and sanctimonious. Those are vices, engaging in them
is dishonest. It's your dishonesty that allows you the presumption to
be arrogant. Or do you find arrogance and sanctimony to be qualities
of an honest man?

How about that passive-aggressive tendency, is
that honest?

is this really relevant and isn't using this question in fact
passive-aggression?


Yes. No. Passive-aggressives are honest neither to themselves nor
those around them.

Is pretending to understand Greek honest?

there has been no pretense. all Greek references I have made are easily
found in reference bibles of various forms. I've never proclaimed to be
fluent in Greek but what I have referenced I do know to be true and is all
easily verified.


You don't "know [it] to be true", Mel, because you dont' know anything
about the semantic requirements of a word without knowing the
language. You do not know a language just because you can look up a
word in a dictionary. That's not how languages (or words) work. If you
believe that then I suspect you're not fluent in any foreign language.
Your pathetic attempts at understanding the Greek of a passage by
looking up a word or two in a dictionary goes way beyond ignorant. And
I do classify what you did above as a pretense. You have absolutely no
idea whether those dictionary definitions are correct or not (what,
you think dictionaries are perfect?), let alone whether they are
correct in that context.

Words do not have meaning outside their semantic, syntactical context.
Either learn Greek or don't. But don't cite a word you merely looked
up and expect to get the context right.

It's a bit like being a Christian, your point above: you either are or
you aren't. There's no use dicking around with dictionaries. I know
it's a common vice in Sunday Schools and pulpits, but that doesn't
make it right, although a lot of publishers and authors are making
money off it.

You might be able to have a Greek reader illuminate a passage for you,
and by corollary a written work about the Greek do the same. But that
doesn't give *you* the knowledge to argue even that same material to
anyone else who does know Greek.

Too many non-sequiturs, circumlocutions and name-calling to get credit
on this one. And the sophistic dancing around the word honest! Honest
and dishonest are the umbrellas under which all other virtues and
vices recline. If you exercise a vice then you are not being an honest
man. You have exhibited several vices in this thread that preclude
readers from accepting you as an honest man, that's it in a nutshell.
Whether you are an honest man generally, or outside this newsgroup, or
except for those vices, I have no idea, nor do I much care. But you
won't exhibit those vices around the NG without comment.

9/11.

12) The balance between salvation by works and/or grace is encumbered
by many texts that appear at odds, and these have been the source of
major divisions within Christian theology, with brilliant thinkers
weighing in on both sides. Is it honest to choose one side and only
quote the texts ("prooftexting") that support your position, ignoring
all those that do not?

if that is what one does then I would have to honestly answer no.. it is
not.


Well, tt's what you did, so by your own admission you were being
dishonest.

10/12

But soft!--you still counter:

Nor is it honest to claim that someone is guilty of it when you don't
have the guts to do anything but talk about how that is wrong or that isn't
correctly following the text yet you don't have the courage enough to say
what is your beliefs and how the text supports it.


Oh, but it is honest, Mel. You are proselytizing on the Wreck and
that's inappropriate. The way you did it was dishonest. The fact that
I don't submit something inappropriate on the Wreck and criticize you
for doing so is not dishonest.

Nor is it honest to
feign participation in a discussion when really all you do is spew
implication after implication in effort to impugn.


What part of the discussion was I faking, Mel? And they weren't just
implications, they were proofs. I don't remember implying anything.
It's not my fault that you have a hard time making sense or being
honest.

I've challenged you about as impassively as I know how to


Well...thank god you haven't been passionate about all this then,
because I don't know what I'd do if you, courageous he-man that you
are and all, got all angry and came after me on the NG. My panties are
bunched up just thinking about it.

stand up and
answer this question. How does man secure his salvation?
Not because I need your answer for I already have my own beliefs but because
I don't think you are anything more than
snip more boring repetitions of name-calling already cited above


Let's see now.
1) I did already answer you (and you were too cowardly to accept
the challenge)
2) You don't need my answer--so you say
3) You know that I think it's inappropriate to post those kinds of
beliefs on the Wreck

....yet you still ask the question. You are one sick puppy. Get a
handle on that control-freak tendency while you can, Mel.

I have more respect for the atheists who have
contributed to this thread. I don't agree with them but I respect them.....
more than you.


Coming from you, Mel, that's a compliment.

Thank you,
H
  #57   Report Post  
mel
 
Posts: n/a
Default this ought to get everybody fired up....

First:

(Prefatory appeal: can you please use a standard reply mode that
retains the hierarchy of the dialogue? Whenever you post it looks like
all remarks are on the same level....)

I think I am. I say "think" simply because I've checked my settings and on
my end they do indeed appear exactly in the hierarchy.

Second:

I'm going to do something you probably don't expect based on my previous
actions. I'm fully aware that you may question my sincerity and may even
use it to further your efforts. I'm going to agree with you.....partially.
Call this an attempt to play the martyr if you want but there comes a time
when one must simply admit to his shortcomings....

I agree my actions have been inappropriate. I've allowed my pride and/or
arrogance to influence my actions. I do not agree that the subject matter
or the location I chose was inappropriate. I simply do not understand your
or any one else's contention that it is.

I read these words," Go into all the world...", and I do not possess the
ability in myself to isolate one part of the world from another as
appropriate or inappropriate nor do I care to so there's no need to ask you
to explain.

I withdraw my question with a sincere respect of your belief that this forum
isn't appropriate as well as myself from further contributions to this
thread..... this isn't what I intended. I apologize to you and to anyone
else who may have been subjected to my inappropriate behavior.

Please note. At the risk of sounding like Popeye... I am what I am and I
will voice my beliefs from time to time simply because I do believe in them.
To hide them or shelf them would be a contradiction in my point of view.
And I see I am still doing it....

sincerely,

Mel


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
oil fired boiler installation, west berks/wiltshire area James UK diy 1 July 18th 03 10:06 PM
oil fired boiler help pjti UK diy 10 July 16th 03 11:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"