Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
this ought to get everybody fired up....
Bravo!, Well spoken.
Born again atheist and proud of it, Don |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
oil fired boiler installation, west berks/wiltshire area | UK diy | |||
oil fired boiler help | UK diy |