You give your over-weening pride way too much credit. My only irritant was your busy-ness telling Bob what he meant. I’m not annoyed by your esoteric christianity claptrap, and I would find your ‘expertness’ amusing, but it is merely pathetic.
I will, however, defend a friend against your obtuseness.
JT
insert your favorite kilt joke here
-Imp
Dear reader
And you wonder why I become worried as soon as someone begins pushing love, compassion, and world peace? Because I know the other side by experience. The people that really have such feelings are humble enough in front of them not to exaggerate.
Tentative writes:
Judging by this post, perhaps I’m underestimating it.
The purpose of the discussion is to clarify what is meant and establish the points of difference. What good is me telling Bob what he means? I’m clarifying for myself what he means by asking.
I disagree with the secularization of Christianity though I knowit is inevitable. Yet I wouldn’t call it claptrap especially when so many within a tradition have died for it and it has offered many people consolation in their times of grief. Even though I’m not Jewish, should I call Judaism claptrap and in this way support the efforts for prize winning cartoons on the Holocaust? I have respect for sincere spiritual efforts regardless of my belief in them. You cannot understand this and would rather label what you do not understand as claptrap.
Yet you say I:
You cannot see how much you do it. Tentative the Great decides who is pathetic. But at least I am in good company.From What I’ve posted and the quotes related to it, you’ve also called Plato, Meister Eckhart, Jacob Needleman, and Simone Weil all pathetic. OK with me. Such company is nothing to be ashamed of IMO.
And this dear reader is how wars start. Obtuseness must always be defended against. Of course when you ask the ones suffering from righteous indignation over the presence of obtuseness where the attack is that must be defended against, then the claws dig in much to the approval of the “Great Beast.” and they turn off.
Now that is a thread worthy of mundane babble. A poll to determine which will be the cause of World War 3: cartoons or obtuseness. Could go either way.
Bob
This is confusing to me. I would certainly agree that modern man is convinced of his rightness, and that those who came before were primitives. I would also say that it it this attitude that gives modern man the apparent liscence to be 'creative' with old wisdom, and disregard written words as archaic and irrelevant. But you take it in a completely opposite direction. If modern man is so convinced of it's rightness, and this attitude is one that we should be skeptical of, then we should also be skeptical of people who want to reinvent religion to conform to modern attitudes, and to solve modern 'problems'.
As far as intuitive vs. literal inspiration from the texts, the texts are literal things- insofar as they contain the words they contain and they don’t contain what they don’t. There’s only so much intuition allowed there. This is another case of giving too much credit to the modern man- our intuitions are modern, our sensibilities are modern, and seeing Scripture and such through that lens is not always a good thing. In fact, not at all a good thing, without the common sense of fundamentalism and scholarship (which are really the same practice, with different conclusions) to tell us what the words actually mean.
But where is the room for intuition? The words are static- the old manuscripts in the old languages aren’t changing every generation.
Likewise, I don’t want the people responsible for putting those texts into a language I can understand to be ‘creative’ I want them to be stuffy, boring fundamentalist/scholars who are concerned with what the words say- really say, that is, not ‘what they say to me’.
So I the texts offer no intuition, and I expect none from the translators.
Similarly, I don’t want any creativity from my priest/pastor so on. I don’t need him to tell me Jesus is against war because he’s against war, or that Jesus was a vegetarian because he’s a vegetarian. What I want, if I’m to trust the man, is a lesson (once again) on what the texts say- what the Church believes. I am not going to Church to worship a minister, after all. He can come up with his own creative ideas after he leaves the Church and starts a cult. He should be as transparent a window into the texts and the Church as a person can be (which will never be perfect).
So then it comes down to me. I tolerate no creativity from the texts, the translators, or the ministers. So then, what liscence to I have to be ‘creative’ when I don’t want it from my instructors- my betters? None, so far as I can see. With access to what the texts mean, what the Church teaches, and what the dogma is (like it or not), any attempt to be creative must in the end be self-serving or egotistical. Mastriani would argue that an artist lives on in his art, that he is present in it. And so? Do I want you (any of you) present in my religion? I don’t respect you (or any human) that much, no. That is something I want minimized.
I have to reiterate that creativity in religion used to be a much more honest affair- if you were the creative/spiritual sort, you created your own pantheon of gods and tried to attract worshippers. Sure, more often than not you burned for it, but an artist has always had to suffer for his art.
Good post Ucc.
Always think the ‘primitive’ label decieving… We haven’t physically changed much, or gotten much cleverer since the old, “smack your dinner round the lughole with a rock” stage. We have nicer haircuts perhaps, and are a little less sweaty.
We ‘know’ more stuff, and have more toys. Both of these things are external. Respect your ancestors - the invention of the ‘rock’, is just as important as the invention of the ‘particle accelerator’.
But it always comes down to trust. Wether I trust someone like Bob, to re-interpret the Bible, or I trust the original creator(s) of the text, is there any difference…? Plato for example, however much he respected and loved Socrates, couldn’t help but put his own words into Socrate’s mouth, why should we believe that the writers of the Gospels did not put any of their own into Jesus’s…? Humans are not photocopying machines.
Religions have always been to an extent an exercise in social manipulation. Wether you choose to be swayed by a modern man, of your generation putting old lessons into some kind of context with current social themes, relavent to you, now, or be swayed by the remnants of a ghost dead 2000 years… The central tenents of most faiths are much the same, do not kill, do not steal, etc… and these things precede the texts involved, they were never invented from scratch. Only the ‘whys’ differ from book to book. “You will go to hell” has become “you will go to jail” as is fitting in a world where the concepts of heaven and hell are fast joining the concept of Santa Claus.
Here - Nick, Bob, et al:
A new story: John 4 revisited
[i]"A man in a well-tailored suit was walking one day in the hot sun. He was thirsty. Along the way he saw a beggar, clad in dust and filth, her hair lank and greasy, sitting by the road with her young child. The beggar had a bottle of water in her hand. The man in the suit squatted down beside her and said:
“Will you give me a drink…?”
The beggar looked surprised and said:
“You are a rich man and I am a beggar, how can you ask me for a drink…?” (for it is not customary in these times for the wealthy to sup with the impoverished)
The Suited man replied, “If you knew who I had been, and what wealth I now possess, then it is you who would ask me for some of what I carry… Faith in myself.”
“Hah - you drink your faith buddy” - said the beggar, “for the day is hot and there are no shops for miles - what use is your money now…? I have water, and you do not. What are you…? Some kind of magician…?” And the beggar’s laughter filled the air.
The man in the suit, unruffled, answered, “But when your bottle is finished, you will soon be thirsty again my friend, whereas I will suffer only a temporary thirst, comforted by the certain knowledge of the unending supply of water ahead of me.”
The child woke and began to cry. Looking deeply into the eyes of the well-dressed man for a second, the beggar looked down, ashamed. She pressed the bottle into his hand and said “Drink - forgive my meaness. Even when you have nothing, still you are possessive of it.” She paused, and with tears in her eyes continued, “But please good sir, please tell me how I can aquire a faith in myself, from where I sit in the dust kicked up by all those who pass me, all those who have a place to go, and the means to get there…? How can one such as I do this…? Become as you…?”
And the man said. “I will tell you, but first, call the father of your child.”
And she cast down her head and said, “I have no husband and my child has no father, or rather many, for I have opened my legs to a multitude of men.”
“Lift up your face good woman” Said the man, “For we are such that can change. There are only degrees of hardship, and the courage to surmount them.”
The woman dried her tears and said “I see that you are a good man, but you will soon leave me, words are empty without deed, and I have no home.”
And the man said, “I was once as you are now, until my father took me into his embrace, and imbued in me my faith.”
The woman laughed bitterly and cried “I have no father.”
“I am father to all” the man said, “Come, let me show you a better way.”
And the trio as one, rose and went away."[/i]
Tab.
Hi Uccisore,
I agree with Tab, a good Post.
I can appreciate that. But my direction isn’t the “completely oppositeâ€, but I see the inspirational and creative already in the dealings of the ancients with scripture. I have given examples of evidence that scripture has been “updated†and deepened, but also where those things that are deemed a contradiction by modern minds are clearly left standing simply because the modern mind, and the mind of the fundamentalist are looking at scripture with the wrong frame of mind.
Staying with a comparison I picked up from Luther, where he said that Hebrew could be compared to an ocean, Greek to a river and Latin to a puddle, modern man is so used to soft-drinks, that he can’t even appreciate the puddle, let alone the ocean. The depth of a language therefore, in my mind, indicates that a whole range of signs and symbols are flowing within Hebrew and Aramaic that we don’t pick up, but which are important to the Semitic handling of scripture. Meanwhile it is however possible, through the efforts of Philologists and other philologically talented people, to go to those depths and, although we can’t contain this depth in as few words as the original, we can learn to tell the story as it was meant to be heard.
In a black and white world, you would probably be right. It would then be a simple case of only trusting those who are white (or black) like us. But that isn’t the way the world was made. The diversity of life forms, the diversity of human races, the diversity of characteristics, the diversity of perspectives show me that the world was never meant to be black and white. Even the diversity within the Bible shows me that the simplistic view that seems to be the wish of many Christians can’t really be fulfilled. God is the Ineffable, the Unspeakable Name, the Invisible, the Mystery – and he is always different, and yet always the same.
There are loads of translations – why? What on earth are we paying for different Bibles for, if there is only one translation. But it isn’t a question of what single words mean, since those single words are transporting pictures, visions, ideas, hope and love. We don’t need to agree on a single word if we can get the vision together. However, the literalist hangs on each word, sometimes each letter, whereas the scholars (at least some of them) point to the Mosaic that each stone is a part of. It is as though people get to close and only see the stones but not the picture.
That is probably why you are still in a church. The common answer to the disinterest of people is “they don’t want to know the truthâ€. I have been on the street talking to people and I found that many people have good reasons for not being a part of the church. The same people have however been ready to listen and join in, if they can trust people (thanks Tab). If they get the feeling that they are not having something thrust down their throats, they will listen. Again, if people get into the habit of telling and listening to stories, they will listen to a Bible-Story. Being as much of the Bible is oral tradition, there are hundreds of stories that can be told.
The problem is that scholars are often telling people bout the newest theological discovery, whereas fundamentalists are telling everybody that “Jesus savesâ€. The theologians are away in their ivory towers, and the fundamentalists believe that single biblepages have a power that saves. Who is there, talking to the normal people in this world?
The creativity that you seem to fear, is the projection of own ideas into religion, but that isn’t where I’m coming from. What I’m saying is that the visions that the Bible transport are dynamic in their own way, but like the children’s bible with a blond Jesus with western features, we seem to be worried that Jesus might have looked a lot like many Arab people and falsify things to fit our own visions. Such visions are however, in comparison with the real thing, drab and banal.
I think that Paul was much more optimistic. He said that people would notice the difference and he even had the hope that he would win people from the Jews, because they would notice how the church is blessed. If you look at the visions he had, you have to ask where they came from. He was theologically more creative than Jesus even was. You might say that he had his visions from God, but Peter was out preaching at Whitsun, saying that all would have visions, the young and the old, the women and the men. He saw the vision of Joel being realised.
Shalom
Just something I was thinking at the cinema. Not very on-point but hey, what the hell.
Words alone, in a book lacking a firm context in the ‘modern’ world, lack the impact of the oral traditions of old. The most important thing a preacher does is to lend the words of his book a physicality, to act as a bridge between the book and the want-to-believer.
In the beginning came the flesh.
Then came the mind.
Then the mind sold a little of its immeadiacy and embraced the word.
We forget in our printing press times the bandwidth of the soul is greater than the bandwidth of the pen. A teaspoon of humanity makes the scripture go down easier.
Hi Ucc,
Out of curiosity, in your concern that you don’t want anyone interpreting the text for you, (I wouldn’t either) which translation are we to consider the authoritive text? Do we choose Hebrew? Aramaic? Greek? KJV? In all the lineage of translation, which one is the valid uncontravertible word of God? What is the ‘test’ that says a translator didn’t get ‘creative’ in choosing words to shade meaning? More over, given that man decided what was holy text, what was apochrypha, and what was to be destroyed, what is your justification that “God’s word” hasn’t been ‘creatively’ interpreted not just once, but many times over, in the last two millenia?
I’m sure that you have chosen a particular translation and have decided that it the one true version of the biblical story, but which one, why, and how do you know?
JT
Hi Tab,
It would almost seem as if you are saying that our human intent may have more to do with understanding words than the words themselves. I’m sure I’m reading into this, so correct me, please. But it looks like you might be saying that ‘reading into’ is our only choice.
I’m sure I am missing something. Enlighten me.
JT
It sounds to me as though Tab is saying that the intent is far more important than the words.
A
LA,
Yes, without putting so many words in Tab’s mouth that he gags, it does seem that intent is the issue. But how does one judge the intent behind the words if words are all there is to judge by? Is it the artful and clever arrangement of the words? Can old words be made ‘new’? Without ‘reading into’, can words by themselves generate a pre-determined judgement on the part of the reader? Does the massage illuminate the message? Is misunderstanding or lack of understanding the failure of the senders inability to find the right words, or the the lack of the receiver of the words to correctly judge the intent of the sender?
A lot of questions. I’m sure Tab has ready answers to all of them. 
JT
For myself I would say that a) the words have a particular resonance when arranged in a certain fashion with a certain intent, and b) that the words are the scriptures, made of the same stuff as thoughts are made of. Thoughts are real but they are not neccessarily true. Intention comes from a couple of different places. a) from the mind - from our trained responses, and b) from our wisdom. The question then is how do you know when the thought is coming from your knowledge or from your wisdom?
Oh and perhaps I should stand back and let Tab present his answers.
A
Tabula Rasa:
What's important is that I'm given the opportunity to trust, or else not- If you tell me "This is Christianity" or "This is the Bible", and then give me your 'creative re-interpretation', then I don't even get to know who I'm putting my trust in. That's why my references to the cult are key (evn if they seem rediculous). If One man decided to come up with his own creative religious ideas, including his own names for God(s), his own legends, and so on, it would be [i]extremely[/i] difficult to gain any mass acceptance. I can't help but feel that that fact is the better part of the reason why people feel the need to write their creativity into an already established faith with millions of listeners. How many Christians would be pleased to learn that their minister was teaching them his own creative religious ideas, and using Christian mythology to legitimize them? If most Christians would be ticked off, and would never stand for it if they knew, then it is [i]deception[/i] to do that to them.
Maybe there is no productive difference between putting your faith in Uccisore or putting your faith in the Bible- that would be a long tangent to take. But I think there's a big difference in Uccisore questing for faith in himself, using "This is what the Bible says" to get there.
Bob:
Even if you believe that, you must believe there are limits: You wouldn't teach a body of Protestants Islam today, Satanism tomorrow, atheism next week, and call it all 'Christianity', I wouldn't think. If not, then where are the boundaries where you have to say "Alright, [i]I[/i] may believe this, but I can't in good conscience say [i]Christianity teaches this[/i]"? It seems to me the boundaries must be set by the concrete nature of authority- If the Bible (or the Pope in the case of Catholics) says "Do A" and you feel the need to teach "Do Not-A", then you have reached the point where an honest person must not claim to be teaching Christianity, right?
If that's all true, then it seems what we'd disagree about is the amount of 'wiggle room' for re-interpretation and creativity, and none of us would think that a minister has completely open liscense, yes?
And how different are they? Are any of these translations primarily efforts in creativity?
People don't want to be told anything that inconveniences them- that's always been the case to a degree, but moreso now in the West, I think. People don't want to listen to Bible-stories or hear Christianity because in it's most honest form [i]it demands conformity[/i]- people have to change in relation to it, not the other way around.
If the only Bible stories you can tell are the ones people are eager to accept, then you may as well keep still, right? Who, in this day in age, needs to be reminded again that Jesus said not to judge people? People hear that, and what they understand is “People aren’t allowed to judge me” and they go about their miserable lives. In a different age, that message might become extremely relevant. That’s another reason why I prefer fundamentalism over creativity- the Bible is broad enough, it simply contains enough words, that it can be used to tell a person whatever they want to hear.
I don’t know. As long as we acknowledge that there is a real thing, then I don’t understand the place for creativity, I suppose.
Tenative:
None of them are perfect, I'm sure. It's the intentional strive for importance that's important- as long as the aim is "Let us make a translation of the Bible that says what the original authors intended", then that's good enough, and can be examined to see if it succeeded or failed. If the goal is, "Let's be creative" or "Let's create a translations of the Bible that makes the Frisian Party look bad in time for the next election", that's the wrong kind of translation, and I think creativity lends itself to that type of thing.
Jeez, no, not at all. My reference of choice is the blueletterbible, where I can read half a dozen different translations anytime an issue of controversy comes up. Thankfully, I can usually find out why there is a controversy- everyone in a while the Septaugint (sp.) will say one thing, where a slightly older (but more fragmentary) manuscript will say something slightly different.
For all, here is an example that I’ve translated into english. Coincidentally it is precisely the story that Tab “retold”.
The Master had been left to make his own way to Jacobs Well near Sychar, since he was exhausted and in need of peace and quiet and the group needed provisions that the Samaritans wouldn’t give them. He had said he’d be all right on his own and even smiled when his disciples mentioned the chance of robbers on the way.
“What would they want from me?†he asked.
The day was hot and sure enough, no-one bothered a lonely Jew, off of the normal trail around Samaria. When he approached Jacobs Well, he could see a middle-aged Samaritan woman carrying a water container, a bucket and ladle from the village just over the hill. She had already seen him and seemed indecisive about whether she should fetch water or not, but the prospect of a journey back with an empty container seemed to edge her on.
When she reached the well, she made a hasty but formal greeting, having recognised him as a Jew. The Master knew where he was, and had no doubt that he wasn’t exactly welcome.
He sat down at the well and watched the woman fill her jar. “Would you give me something to drink?â€
The woman looked at him out of the corner of her eye. A wry smile came to her face, realising that he had no way to draw water. She began to play with him, turning and dancing with the ladle full of water before him, but then suddenly standing firmly on her two feet, she said bluntly, “You, a Jew, want water from me? Would you even use the same ladle?â€
The Master smiled back at her, knowing he was at a disadvantage. This woman was used to having an advantage over men, but she wasn’t a prostitute. She carried on drawing her water, waiting for his reply with eager glimpses in his direction.
The Master remained calmly sitting and said with a steady voice, “If you’d known the gift of God, and who it is who is saying to you, Give me to drink, you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.â€
The woman wasn’t prepared for this, but had imagined the young man begging her mercy in the mid-day sun. “What words are these,†she asked herself. She stood up straight in front of him and mustered this strange apparition. A young man in the middle of nowhere, with no provisions and no water, without even a ladle or bucket to draw water. He was thirsty, who wouldn’t be in this heat. He was also tired and yet he was so disciplined. Was he being downright rude, or was there something to him that she hadn’t yet seen?
“Sir,†she said carefully, “you haven’t even a bucket to draw with, and the well is deep.†She smiled wryly at him. “Where then, do you have this “living water?†Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, out of which he himself did drink, and his sons, and his cattle?â€
She felt pleased with herself. She had politely but clearly put him in his place. She asked herself fleetingly, whether he would stoop down to ask her again, or whether she would leave him back at the well without a bucket.
The Master stood up wearily and pointed to the well. “Every one who drinks this water shall thirst again, but whoever is able to drink the water that I give him, must no longer thirst, up until the promised age.†He took a slow step towards her and took her bucket gently but firmly, lifting to his mouth. Water flowed passed his cheeks and soaked his clothes as he swallowed a rest that had remained in the pail. Passing the vessel back, he said “the water that I will give him shall become a well of water inside of him, springing up to life for the rest of this age.â€
The woman was unsettled, surprised that he had crossed the borders of customary unpleasantness, taken the bucket and satisfied his thirst. His wet face and clothes, his smile and sudden growth in her eyes drew her to him and when she noticed, she was about to flee. For some reason she turned and spurted out, “Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw.â€
He sat down again and the tension subsided, leaving the woman in turmoil.
“Go, call your husband, and come back again,†said the Master as though he saw inside her soul and was tormenting her.
“But I have no husband…†she said without thinking. She quickly put her hand over her mouth. “Who is this, that I tell my secrets to?†she asked herself.
“Of course, you do right to correct me, you’ve had five husbands, but now, the one you have is not your husband.â€
The woman screeched and ran several steps away from the well. She stooped grasping the stones on the ground as though she was about to stone this mysterious young Jewish man who had appeared in her life out of nowhere. Tears had swelled in her eyes and were now breaking forth like small waterfalls over her cheeks. But something made her think back to the stories she had heard about the Fathers, how Abraham had spoken to men in the desert who had been the angels of the Lord. From an unknown source of strength she regained her composure.
“Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.†She stood up and moved slowly towards him. “Our fathers worshipped on this mountain, but you … you Jews say that it is only appropriate to worship in Jerusalem.â€
The Master nodded and smiled, “Woman believe me, there will be a time when you will worship the Father, but not on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem.â€
He stood up again and approached her. Taking her hand, he said, “You have worshipped what you haven’t known. We worship what we have known, because deliverance is a promise to the Jews.â€
Motioning her to sit next to him on the well wall, he said, “there will be a time, and in fact it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth.â€
He took the ladle out of the bucket and filled it from her jar, offering her to drink from it. She took the cup of the ladle between her hands and sipped from the water.
The Master watched her attentively and she looked away, not being able to bear his searching look, but she heard him say, “The Father seeks people who will worship him in this way. If the Holy One is Spirit and the breath of life, then all those worshipping Him will live by his breath, and abide in his truth.â€
The woman looked at him astounded and yet she inquired, “I have known that Messiah will come. When he comes, he will tell us all thingsâ€
Jesus touched her shoulder and said, “Don’t wait. It is the eternal ‘I am’ who is speaking to you now.â€
Hi Bob
Well it looks as if the ball is in your court. It is an excellent opportunity to give these interpretation skills of yours practical expression.
I’m surprised you have yet to address this matter. This friend of yours JT barges into our conversation making all sorts of false accusations for the purpose of protecting you from my obtuseness and the “claptrap” of my spiritual beliefs.
The point is do you agree? You have the obligation not only as a moderator to address such ad hom delights especially when in the middle of them and also as an interpreter of the “Word” and how it is respected.
If you agree with JT, then I know where we stand and consequently where those expressing similar “claptrap” stand in relation to the board. More importantly I will know where we stand as human beings. Because you are in the middle, you cannot ignore it. You either support this abuse disguised as defense against my “obtuseness” or you reject it. Ignoring it only means you support it. Looking forward to your reply.
Tab
I’ll get back to your revision of John 4 later as I’m off to work. In the meantime.
In reference to this physicality, Is it the preacher’s job acting as a bridge to provide creative interpretations, answers, or to help the person appreciate the question?
This is a profound psychological observation. Is the preacher’s theoretical primary responsibility towards installation of creative beliefs througth interpretation or to assist in the experience of the mysteries?
Hi Uccisore,
What are you actually talking about? You definitely seem to exaggerate and hype up things I have said. If this is your standard approach, do you leave anybody standing who may teach that Jesus said this or that, that you don’t agree with?
Your understanding of Christianity can’t amount to literal obedience to the Bible. There are too many texts that I advise you not to obey literally – or are you into the snake bites and the like?
Shame you didn’t take the time to read what I wrote.
Shalom
Nick,
One last time. My reference to “claptrap” has nothing to do with the learned people you not so cleverly tried to hide amongst, but your use of them… Your constant knowing is the issue, Nick. Even your questions aren’t questions, they are merely more of your knowing disguised as questions. That you see none of this is almost to the point of incredulity. If this had been the first time you encountered this sort of response or if it hadn’t come from multiple members of the forum, then perhaps it would be just a ‘personality clash’. Is there any chance you could see your approach the way others obviously see it? I doubt it. You seem oblivious to the obvious.
Your complaint of ad homs is spurious, but to be as compliant as I know how, you have my apologies for any personal injury you may have suffered at my hands. Should you feel this is insufficient, please contact Ben, the administrator.
JT
Hi Ucc,
Aren’t you taking the label “creative” a little past the statements in the opening post? “…translation of the Bible thay says what the original authors intended” How would I know how much creativity each translator or group of translators added or subtracted from the original authors intent? What mechanism grant’s any translation authority? I do understand that at the bottom of all is faith in the intent of the translator to do the best they can with what they’ve got, but to suggest that the intent of the original authors can’t be expressed in words relevant in the language in common use today seems a bit strained. As you and I have discussed before, there is a pretty wide spread in interpretation of the “Word” at any time - and from the identical translation!
Would it be fair to say that the issue is about finding understanding rather than which words are used? Excuse me for not knowing how many languages the Bible has been ‘translated’ into, but isn’t ‘creativity’ involved in this effort as well? How much is lost or gained in cultural reductionism despite good intent? Does a Korean christian carry away the same understanding of the original author’s intent as do you?
It seems to me that while the intent HAS to be good, the words themselves become irrelevent.
JT
Hi Nick,
sorry about the delay, there was just so much to answer …
I find it strange that you always come out with this kind of statement after we have struggled for a while. Are you saying that we are at the end of the cycle of Christianity?
When I read all of the things you quote, I think continually to myself, “If he was talking to me about my own spiritual practice, I might agree, but we are here talking about reaching other people. We are also talking about shaping life around us, finding direction for our loved ones, helping people discover love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.â€
There may be a lot wrong with me, perhaps I shouldn’t be so attached to the people around me, but I need people to practice the fruits of the spirit on. My wife thinks that my struggle might bring me an early grave, but I think that life isn’t about avoiding the grave. It isn’t about prevention, but about reaching out to grasp the mysterious life that God has given us and follow the paths he gives us. He gave me her, our son, relatives, friends and neighbours – a whole multitude of people. He gave me a vocation, he called me into his church, he opened up his word and I just can’t help understanding him the way I do.
Frankly, in the sight of so much suffering, unrest and injustice, I can’t concentrate on thinking about whether there are “the laws of grace†or “the grace of the lawâ€, but I find myself confronted with lives that are being wasted. Many of them are even pious lives which are full of questions. I seem to have written on my forehead: “Ask me – I’ll tell you!†When you have looked into that many perplexed eyes, you know what your prayer is going to be about. And what a revelation inspiration can bring. But what banality can be expressed by people who have no love, only correct dogma, methodical rhetoric and theological structures.
Of course Christianity is more than an aspect of secular Judaism, but we shouldn’t leave the source of scriptural prophecy out of the equation. Being “saved†is one perspective, but not the only one – and perhaps only a very primitive perspective, lacking maturity. I believe that the Spirit is the source of inspiration that leads us down a contemplative path, into communities of brotherly love, and as servants to our fellow humankind.
And you say that to someone who regards Jesus to be a conservative Jew? The new wine of the Pharisees threatened burst the skins of tradition by overloading them. The Jewish people were being overburdened by the pious, who thought they could force God’s hand. Jesus, on the other hand, offers a yoke to bear the heavy burdens they were already being forced to bear. I am not burdening people, but helping them carry the weight that is already making them buckle, giving them refreshment, helping them up – in short, I am trying to be the Samaritan or neighbour to those around me.
The only householder that comes to mind is in Matthew – could you quote?
The “good Samaritan†seems to get complicated when you explain it to me. The answer I have had for years has been that Jesus is telling the crowd that loving your neighbour isn’t something you should be passive about - asking who is my neighbour, but active in the sense that we should go about looking for people we can be a neighbour to.
It sounds very theoretical to me. Especially if the state of mankind is, as you say, to be the “wretch†or the sinner who is forgiven, it seems questionable to me, to be able to reach a “state of being†that is different. I don’t continually press the point, but it is knowing that there is an “Adam†within me that brings me down to earth. Contemplation helps me reach other spheres, but I am very much a part of this body of mine.
I think you are mixing compassion = Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it
with passion = A powerful emotion, such as love, joy, hatred, or anger
I didn’t have the feeling I was being protected. I think that you definitely put yourself in difficult situations with what you post because you seem to be the expert you often criticise, but I haven’t stopped trying to understand it. Perhaps it is the complication of what you post, as well as the volume sometimes, that makes people wish you could post a simple answer to a simple question.
JT and I know that we don’t agree on all points, but our main agreement seems to be that we need room for imperfect expression and acceptance. There are people in the Forum who are very overbearing and others who use the Forum to press their agendas and we know that there are virtually hundreds that don’t post, but only read. If we could persuade these people to post, I think would be a good thing. One problem to overcome is exemplified by this thread. It is really quite a simple subject, but there are people here who rip such “naivety†apart, over exaggerating and making it a crime to be creative.
You attempt to force a reaction from me in JT’s direction, I think you have reacted enough and JT has expressed his apologies to me and to you. And this post is already too long.
Shalom