Theological Opinions , PART II

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

1) I didn't say it did.

No, but you basically suggested that that was what we believed...

2) Does that make it OK?

No! It goes to show that violence is not confined to Christians.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Do you think it's wrong to do that?

If so, you just made a judgement yourself

And not only that, but Jesus was making a judgment when he said "don't judge!" He was being self-contradictory if you assume that meaning of "judgment." Clearly he had a different definition in mind .

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

No, but you basically suggested that that was what we believed...



No! It goes to show that violence is not confined to Christians.

HB, I am not saying that you believe in doing violence to me. I am saying that it is wrong to do violence. If there is a teaching that says to do violence, do you agree that this teaching should be disobeyed?

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

And not only that, but Jesus was making a judgment when he said "don't judge!" He was being self-contradictory if you assume that meaning of "judgment." Clearly he had a different definition in mind .

This is, in my opinion, and please understand, with respect, a silly, silly twist. Clearly Jesus commanded us to mind our own frickin' business. You have to read the entire passage in context:

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

6"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

This is, in my opinion, and please understand, with respect, a silly, silly twist. Clearly Jesus commanded us to mind our own frickin' business.

Verses 3-5, which you quoted:

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

"First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." He didn't say, "take the plank out of your eye and steer clear of your brother, period!" Rather, he said that before people try to help others, they should fix themselves.

[Elfhelm]

So what you're saying is that you are sinless therefore you can judge me?

not you personally, by the way...

[Elfhelm]

I won't be online for a while.

What I am saying is, Jesus is clearly telling us that we have a FIRST RESPONSIBILITY for our own salvation. And to me it is clear that he considers it hypocritical to run around trying to save other people. That is not our job. That's what the pearls before swine part means.

What I am saying is:

This was not supposed to be a religion of telling other people how to live their lives.

It was supposed to be a personal thing between us and God.

Please stop saying that I am judging you for judging by trying to elucidate this very important fact. That is not what I am doing. I am trying to save Jesus' teachings from the modern Sadducees. The modern Sadducees is my term for people who turn Jesus into a politician.

And I think you'll find gay people in heaven.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

So what you're saying is that you are sinless therefore you can judge me?

Jesus said you first should remove the plank, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck. That assumes we will be able to correct other people's behavior. So clearly he was willing to accept a certain amount of sin in the person who's trying to correct the other person.

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

What I am saying is, Jesus is clearly telling us that we have a FIRST RESPONSIBILITY for our own salvation. And to me it is clear that he considers it hypocritical to run around trying to save other people. That is not our job. That's what the pearls before swine part means.

I interpret it differently. To me, the pearls to the swine means that we should only try to help people who will appreciate it, rather than try to help those who will "tear you to pieces."

I appreciate this passage particularly now, because in college for many days I tried to debate with someone who loved to argue, but who had a hateful disposition and mocked and derided Christianity. He would never have listened to anything I was saying, but took great pleasure in arrogantly looking down at me and others, and making snide and condescending remarks. Anyway, he was a thorough pill. I've met very few of them in my life. He is the only person I know who has bothered me so intensely.

Yet at that time, I devoted hours to debating with him and trying to show him the truth about Christianity. I should have heeded this scripture: "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Listening to Jesus on that occasion would have saved me a lot of frustration.

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

What I am saying is:

This was not supposed to be a religion of telling other people how to live their lives.

Jesus said that he did not come into the world to judge it, yet the Gospels are full of incidents where Jesus tried to help people to change. Therefore he could not have defined helping people to change as judging, for otherwise he would have been guilty of it himself.

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Please stop saying that I am judging you for judging by trying to elucidate this very important fact. That is not what I am doing. I am trying to save Jesus' teachings from the modern Sadducees. The modern Sadducees is my term for people who turn Jesus into a politician.

You're judging their interpretation of Jesus' teachings as wrong. That's a moral judgment of their actions. Jesus made moral judgments against the actions of the Sadducees of his time. He didn't object to making those kinds of judgments. He didn't define judgment as wrong when it's judging the action, but when it's judging the person.

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Let's consider verse 2. It says, "in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

Wrongful inaction can be an equal crime to wrongful action. If I refuse to help someone who's being abused, Jesus says I will be treated the same way at the Final Judgment. I refused to help someone who was oppressed, so I will not be helped when I am oppressed. My refusal to judge a criminal's crime against someone else means that God will not judge the criminal who comes against me. What I do to others will be done unto me. What I don't do to others won't be done to me. If I don't judge someone's actions as self-destructive and attempt to help that person, my self-destructive actions won't be judged and no one will attempt to help me. That's justice. It works both ways. Inaction as well as action will be judged. "With the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

And I think you'll find gay people in heaven.

I think that people that are gay on earth can certainly end up in Heaven.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think that people that are gay on earth can certainly end up in Heaven.

What do you mean, exactly?

[Elfhelm]

I don't know about Rian, but I am referring to Luke 23:39-43.

[Elfhelm]

Lief, thanks for your very thoughtful reply. I read it in depth several times, and while we disagree on a few points, I don't want to detract from it by arguing... just yet

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Jesus said you first should remove the plank, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck. That assumes we will be able to correct other people's behavior. So clearly he was willing to accept a certain amount of sin in the person who's trying to correct the other person.

I interpret it differently. To me, the pearls to the swine means that we should only try to help people who will appreciate it, rather than try to help those who will "tear you to pieces."

I appreciate this passage particularly now, because in college for many days I tried to debate with someone who loved to argue, but who had a hateful disposition and mocked and derided Christianity. He would never have listened to anything I was saying, but took great pleasure in arrogantly looking down at me and others, and making snide and condescending remarks. Anyway, he was a thorough pill. I've met very few of them in my life. He is the only person I know who has bothered me so intensely.

Yet at that time, I devoted hours to debating with him and trying to show him the truth about Christianity. I should have heeded this scripture: "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Listening to Jesus on that occasion would have saved me a lot of frustration.

Jesus said that he did not come into the world to judge it, yet the Gospels are full of incidents where Jesus tried to help people to change. Therefore he could not have defined helping people to change as judging, for otherwise he would have been guilty of it himself.

You're judging their interpretation of Jesus' teachings as wrong. That's a moral judgment of their actions. Jesus made moral judgments against the actions of the Sadducees of his time. He didn't object to making those kinds of judgments. He didn't define judgment as wrong when it's judging the action, but when it's judging the person.

Let's consider verse 2. It says, "in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

Wrongful inaction can be an equal crime to wrongful action. If I refuse to help someone who's being abused, Jesus says I will be treated the same way at the Final Judgment. I refused to help someone who was oppressed, so I will not be helped when I am oppressed. My refusal to judge a criminal's crime against someone else means that God will not judge the criminal who comes against me. What I do to others will be done unto me. What I don't do to others won't be done to me. If I don't judge someone's actions as self-destructive and attempt to help that person, my self-destructive actions won't be judged and no one will attempt to help me. That's justice. It works both ways. Inaction as well as action will be judged. "With the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

Except to say that for me it's not a "moral judgement" to try to preserve the original intent of Jesus' teachings.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Except to say that for me it's not a "moral judgement" to try to preserve the original intent of Jesus' teachings.

You wouldn't be trying to preserve the original intent of Jesus' teachings if you felt that the actions of the modern Sadducees were morally acceptable, would you?

You have seen something you feel is wrong being done, and so you are taking action to prevent the wrong. You've judged an action as wrong, and so you are taking counter-measures. It's a moral judgment.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You have seen something you feel is wrong being done, and so you are taking action to prevent the wrong. You've judged an action as wrong, and so you are taking counter-measures. It's a moral judgment.

No. I am not the one who is saying others are wrong.

I am trying to find out what is RIGHT and preserve it.

There is no judgement of others involved. If others perceive a judgement, it might be from within. For instance...

If I say that Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers" and someone thinks I am judging them for supporting war, but they want to be a Christian, then OF COURSE, they will say I am judging them and will attempt to use this silly, silly, obviously twisted logic to squirm out of Jesus' very clear statement.

But that judgement DID NOT COME FROM ME.

So, again, I ask you to STOP SAYING THAT I AM JUDGING YOU when I quote Jesus.

In short, If I say that Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers" and you think I said "cursed are the warriors", then you shouldn't be asking ME not to make judgements because, you see, I didn't say that and neither did he.

[hectorberlioz]

1) The Everlasting Man, G.K. Chesterton/Ignatius, also Orthodoxy

2) The Orthodox Church, Timothy Ware/Penguin Religion

3) Catechism of the Catholic Church/Image Doubleday

4) Everything by C.S. Lewis, esp. Mere Christianity and Miracles.

5) Socrates meets Jesus, Peter Kreeft, also The Journey/IVP

6) The Da Vinci Hoax, Sandra Miesal and [?] Olson/Ignatius

A word about The Da Vinci Hoax: it's by two Catholics, WAY more researched than any other book of it's kind. It also is a considered book. Not rushed at all. Read it, you'll be surprised.

A word about the Chesterton also. It's a tough read at first, mostly because of his classic language. But let me tell you, no one else can cut through arguments about history as well as he can.

[Elfhelm]

I have estimated that if I read one book a week and I live to an average age, I can only read about 1,500 more books before I die. I already regret the second last book I read as a vast waste of time (even though I'm playing devil's advocate on it's thread).

My list of must-read books begins with the scripture of the world's religions and then moves to philosophers. So...

The Tao Te King
The Analects of Confucious
The Dhamapada
The Lotus Sutra
The New Testament (Jerusalem Bible translation)
The writings of Baha'ulah

then

Plato's Republic
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics
Boethius Consolation of Philosophy
Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of Judgement
Nietsche Beyond Good and Evil
Marx Capital

then
Whitman Leaves of Grass
Pound Cantos
Williams Paterson
H.D. Trilogy
Zukofsky "A"
Olson Maximus
Enslin Ranger

all will be read before I read that catechism again or anything by CS Lewis ever again!

[inked]

HB,

No wonder you are so astute in so many things! Besides being very well audited in the musical venue, you are extremely well-read. IT would seem that thou art a genuine renaissance person!

On your recommendation, I might read the rebuff to TDC - just to enlarge my borders and see what I might have missed on my own.

Salute, HB, Salute!



Elfhelm,

Ah, now I understand! Pure prejudice! Iron may sharpen iron but no irony shall flex my rigidity!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I think I've read the Dhammapada; I read a collection of edited Buddhist texts, and I THINK one was the Dhammapada; however, it came across as so heavily editted, I'm going to find a different version to read it again. A friend offered to loan me her copy; maybe I'll take her up a the beginning of the school year. I have a copy of a book by Lao Tzu somewhere, called the Way of Life; I suppose it's the same as the Tao Te King. I also have a copy and commentary of the Koran, which is relatively high on my reading list. Your entire Philosophy selection is on the curriculum here at TAC; I've only read the Republic so far, though. I like it a lot.

[Elfhelm]

For eastern thought I am mostly drawn to Confucious these days.

But there is still an enormity of American Poetry of the 20th Century that beckons to me, and when I slip off for another few months, unheard from here, I will probably be deep in poetry.

The closest thing to my "Bible" is Leaves of Grass.

I fail to see how I'm the ONLY prejudiced person on this thread.

[inked]

Elfhelm,

ONLY prejudiced against CS Lewis, Sir. That was my statement!

By the way, I enjoy Leaves of Grass by Whitman also.