Raincoaster as a deity?
Apologies to Metro (and if you/raincoaster do mind I'll delete it) but I just had to rip this comment off. This thread was just too good not to draw attention to:
Metro said here:
Y’know–I always had a problem with that idea. An omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God killed his own son/himself for my sins–(mine specifically?). Or at the very least handed him over.
But–couldn’t he have avoided, y’know, the whole business of having to manifest himself as human and then get tortured to death by just making up his mind that I wouldn’t do any of those sinful things? Seems to lack efficiency, this guy. Bit of a drama queen, really.
Also, he seems to disapprove, if I get his followers’ rantings right, of sex, drinking, dancing, and not wearing funny hats. Not to mention uncovered women (a consummation most devoutly to be wished, from where I stand), pork, and Jews, Muslims, Christians …
And if you incur his displeasure, he has this place called “hell” planned for you, where you will be on fire, raped by demons, or possibly simply vanish. For ever. Anyway, he won’t let you into his house.
Unless you take him home and make him yours. And tell your friends. And spend the rest of your life not doing things in his name (often while doing other, equally vile things in his). The rest of your life, spent on your knees. Then he might forgive you and let you chill in his crib after you snuff it.
Raincoaster doesn’t mind if you smoke or drink–hell, she might even join you. Like the tide “might” rise. I’m fairly sure she’s okay with the dancing and nude ladies (or equivalent), too.
But–and as Orson Welles said, it’s a big but: IF you manage to offend her she will NOT send you to be set fire to by demons. She may pout until her face cracks, she might not speak to you for simply ages. But she won’t actually throw you into her own lake of fire.
In fact, she is quite likely to eventually forgive you even without sustained begging. And then you can come to her place and hang out, like. And drink and smoke (on the patio, anyway).
That’s pretty big of her, doncha think?
Certainly bigger than Jesus.
Metro said here:
Y’know–I always had a problem with that idea. An omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God killed his own son/himself for my sins–(mine specifically?). Or at the very least handed him over.
But–couldn’t he have avoided, y’know, the whole business of having to manifest himself as human and then get tortured to death by just making up his mind that I wouldn’t do any of those sinful things? Seems to lack efficiency, this guy. Bit of a drama queen, really.
Also, he seems to disapprove, if I get his followers’ rantings right, of sex, drinking, dancing, and not wearing funny hats. Not to mention uncovered women (a consummation most devoutly to be wished, from where I stand), pork, and Jews, Muslims, Christians …
And if you incur his displeasure, he has this place called “hell” planned for you, where you will be on fire, raped by demons, or possibly simply vanish. For ever. Anyway, he won’t let you into his house.
Unless you take him home and make him yours. And tell your friends. And spend the rest of your life not doing things in his name (often while doing other, equally vile things in his). The rest of your life, spent on your knees. Then he might forgive you and let you chill in his crib after you snuff it.
Raincoaster doesn’t mind if you smoke or drink–hell, she might even join you. Like the tide “might” rise. I’m fairly sure she’s okay with the dancing and nude ladies (or equivalent), too.
But–and as Orson Welles said, it’s a big but: IF you manage to offend her she will NOT send you to be set fire to by demons. She may pout until her face cracks, she might not speak to you for simply ages. But she won’t actually throw you into her own lake of fire.
In fact, she is quite likely to eventually forgive you even without sustained begging. And then you can come to her place and hang out, like. And drink and smoke (on the patio, anyway).
That’s pretty big of her, doncha think?
Certainly bigger than Jesus.
posted by Philipa at 3:43 AM
14 Comments:
Never mind long legs, flicking your hair and having 3M in the bank - a woman should practice words and phrases like:
really? (with rapt attention and a smile)
That's amazing!! (big eyes, big smile)
You are SO right (make it believable)
You are so courageous to do the job you're paid to do, err state the truth (don't let your slip show)
I would vote for you in a heartbeat (don't end any sentence with the words 'big boy')
This country needs Men like you (slightly emphasise the word 'Men' but not too breathily)
You should be PM (whatever you do, don't smile now, make it believable)
Then again if I looked like Sandra Bullock I reckon I wouldn't have to work hard at all. If I appeared on some shit soap prog and was black or mixed race I'd be invited on Question Time and Newsnight.
Oh god! Or possibly "oh outmoded humanocentric atavistic conceit".
This doesn't mean you're taking me seriously, does it?
Christ on a--I mean "symbolic legendary sacrifice on a crutch!"
Though I DO ask these questions, I usually try to phrase them slightly more philosophically.
I am humbled that you should think my maunderings deep enough to ponder here.
But for the love of a theory to explain meterology don't go telling Raincoaster.
She's too poor to afford all the new hats she'd need.
Though a church that requires the ritual consumption of vast quantities of gin might be a refreshing change ... and after all, we've got a leaky apartment in downtown Vancouver we could use for a Fellowship Hall.
Do you have no faith then Phil. you seem very anti church. ? Its odd isn`t it because I seem to be drifting back into some sort of half baked uncertainty. Quite aside from anything else , if you were allowed to do everything , it wouldn’t be much fun now would it . I seem the recall the Marqui De Sade making that point so I `m not in the best of company
True though isn’t it
What would be the point of a god that only svelte sophisticates like metro can understand . Can you understand love can you understand loyalty ?Would it make any difference to the expierience of either if you constructed some trite prefabricated chicken house of logic? It would not .
I favour ritual and mystery and instinct.
If you were mixed race you would be vastly less likely to have any options in your life at all for reasons of class. The Lib dums may patronise and misunderstand most outside their middleclass milieu but that is not the fault of those who are “not white”.
The tokenism you describe is damaging for everyone but be careful you do not cast your contempt too widely
No no, it's not not contempt. I reproduced this because it was, to me, worthwhile. It is worthwhile to put things into context, to translate them. Look, (as Peter often writes, and at the risk of sounding superior) The Life of Brian was trashed and I didn't think it heretical at all. The 'cheesemakers' allows you to consider things, from a different angle. What if it was happening today - what if raincoaster WAS a deity?
Luckily this is not what the crucifixion means, at least as far as I'm concerned. To me the crucifixion is the completion of Jesus' consistent message of role-reversal, exalting the powerless and bringing low the corrupt authorities and powers.
This message is easily recognisable from such classics as the Sermon on the Mount, and the Magnificat, and is I think one of the principle messages of the Gospels (after 'love your God' and 'love your neighbour'). At the cross, Jesus is ridiculed and shamed, and yet the ridicule and shame is actually upon the authorities who did it to him, not on him. Jesus makes his position on this clear by saying things like "whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all." As Kenneth Grayston writes: “They are enticed from their defences by his vulnerability: they use their power against the chief agent of God, the Divine Son; and by destroying him they destroy their own power.” This utter and excessive destruction and humiliation of Jesus has the complete opposite of the intended effect, obliterating their worldly power and instituting a new power for the meek. All the negative forces that send Jesus to the cross are turned on their head, its injustice reveals justice for all, its power shows the weakness of the powerful, and by bringing Jesus low they lift him up to be higher than any other. It is because of this that Jesus’ earlier statement in 10:45 of the ransom for many, being set in the context of role-reversal for the disciples, can really come to the fore. He came not to be served but to serve – and his ransom is to institute this new law, that the humble who serve are exalted, while the powerful who oppress are humiliated.
Of course any view of the cross and/or atonement has to be within the context of a universalist God, as hell is simply not harmonious with a benevolent God. As such either hell does not exist or God is not worthy of our worship.
Hell does exist Jack and its not as far off as you may think. Hell can be half an hour on your own in the night. Despairing.
Is that ok by god and if so what point can you possibly be making . Your meek and poor thing I think must have appealled to the slaves where christianity topped the charts. Its pretty much a socilaist asgenda though isn`t it
I imagine it might well have appealed to slaves, but it is not a socialist agenda. In fact it is a right-of-centre tory one more than a socialist one. At no point does Jesus teach corporate social action, such as overthrowing Caesar and freeing all the slaves, such as you might expect from a socialist visionary/leader. His teachings on morality are for individuals not societies, and more to the point they are certainly not to be imposed on people by societies, as they are in a socialist setting. Jesus preaches against wealth and against adultery, and yet he eats with tax-collectors and prevents a woman being stoned for adultery. In each case he continues the moral ideas, but refuses to enforce them upon people. The point is to strive for personal morality, but with the freedom to make the choice.
The role-reversal is not encouraging an actual social role-reversal, where the poor become rich and the powerful become weak. Instead it is highlighting the weakness and cowardice in power, and the strength that can be found in the powerless.
John Humphries asked a question on his God spot on R4 (link on other post), something like; the people in the gas chambers probably prayed, what good did it do them? They wanted an internentionist God who would literally save them from a horrible death. Where was He??
Newmania - it's not that I don't have faith it's that I don't have blind faith. Like Humphries I would quite like it. But also, like him, it seems to elude me. When I was little I wanted to be stupid because I saw acceptance without question as happiness. That's what I observed. Now I know you can be intelligent and still do stupid things. When I lost the ability to think I was very shaken and wanted 'me' back and have worked towards that. Religion and the Church was part of that recovery. I don't know if it's a psychological crutch or whether it's real. Religion deals with big questions. I want to consider them. I don't just believe in the advert of the movie (though I do) I want to read the book. I'm just trying to understand.
Jack I like that answer which is one of the first things you have said I haven’t though perversely wrong headed ,for a while. That’s good enough for me , thanks .It may have been the fact he always looks like Wolfie Smith that put me off. Oh,...Che tee-shirt etc.
I think I am with you Phillipa but "not blind faith"? Seeing Faith is an oxymoron . Perhaps faith is not quite the right word . I feel looking for proofs is misguided but the obvious stupidity of “faith” is a difficulty I admit . You express your self wonderfully well as ever
"Svelte"? Why thanks, NM--I didn't think you'd noticed.
I'm savouring the odd feeling of being in agreement with you on some points. Who'da thunk?
However, I mistrust ritual and "mystery"--if faith is to be a reasoned faith there has to be some sort of foundation of rationality. One should be able to understand one's god in some way or other. Otherwise how to understand what he/she wants? I suppose you could take the shamans at their word.
And you're right that if everything were permissible, much of it would stop being fun. But if the alternative is prohibition on the grounds that "god doesn't like it" then no thanks.
And I think you're saying faith needs belief, but certainty denies faith.
I once heard it said "You don't need to believe in a table: it is".
The fundamental flaw in fundamentalism is that fundies of any stripe seem to treat their God as a sort of furniture for the soul: a place to rest their baggage.
Jack: wouldn't the logical extension of the Christian ideal mean that eventually the Caesars would have stopped being Caesars of their own will? Or at any rate stopped behaving like rulers and started acting more like part of a commune?
Interesting reading at bustedhalo.com , by the way.
newmania:
Hey thanks! Never thought I’d see the day… Perhaps this post will correct the anomaly.
Metro:
Indeed quite possibly. Whether or not a Christian Caesar would stop being a Caesar by their own will would depend on how they interpret Jesus’ teachings. There is actually quite a bit of scope for not doing so. There is of course the classic “divinely appointed” ruler, used to its fullest in the past, and which is in fact a fairly solid biblical idea. But there seems to be quite a good case for a “live in the role you’re in, but in a good way” type morality. Certainly Jesus preaches extensively against violence, but when two roman soldiers ask Jesus how they should follow him, he tells them to return to their duties but to be ‘good’ soldiers - not raping and pillaging like the rest. With tax collectors he does the same: collect taxes but don’t do things like take bribes. In fact there is a fairly good contemporary example of a ‘Caesar’ who acts in a fairly Christian way, which is the Sultan of Brunei (a Muslim of course). While he was until fairly recently the richest man in the world, and large amounts of his fortune were squandered on cars (more than half of Rolls-Royce’s cars go to him) and other luxuries, he treats his population very well. They have free healthcare, education, good infrastructure and all the rest, and for students who show promise at school, he’ll pay for them to study at foreign universities. Of course this attitude to governance has it’s disadvantages, and Brunei is not known for being a driving force behind science or business (one of the reasons that Christian principles don’t apply well to nations), but his attitude of generosity is a good one, and I would suggest is quite in keeping with Jesus’ ideals.
Of course the most common rebuttal to this is to ask whether Christianity actually says anything about morality. After all, one second Jesus is telling people that if they look on a woman in lust they have committed adultery, the next he is eating with prostitutes and saving a woman from being punished for adultery. One moment he’s telling everyone to turn the other cheek, the next he’s telling soldiers to go and do their job (of killing). One moment he’s preaching that it’s easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than to get a rich man in to heaven and throwing money-lenders out of the temple, the next he’s eating with tax collectors and telling people to “render unto Caesar what is Caesars” (in fact hoarding wealth is one of the topics he is very consistent on…) This is a fair criticism, and highlights a VERY key point about Christian morality. Unlike Judaism or Islam, Christianity is not legislative or prescriptive of morality (despite what fundamentalists and Roman Catholics would have you think…) Evangelicals in the states came up with the term “WWJD” – “What Would Jesus Do?” which was swiftly put onto wristbands and necklaces. They intended this phrase to encourage their flocks to obey their laws; you were meant to glance at your wristband while masturbating, be filled with shame imagining Jesus glaring at you and stop. I’ve actually heard a number of liberals (including some theologians I rather admire) criticise them, and yet interpreted differently they are a brilliant summary of liberal Christian morality. I wore one for 2 years, and only stopped because I was starting to question whether God existed or not. Christian morality is not meant to be legislative or prescriptive, but it does still exist. It is a very situational morality, highlighting the fact that catch-all solutions are completely wrong. Stopping a woman from having an abortion may (possibly) be a good thing in some cases, but preventing a 12 year old who has been raped from having one is highly immoral in my view. Likewise with war, going to war purely for power and aggrandisement, with all the human suffering it entails, is wrong in my view. However, the war against Nazi Germany, the threat of force in Sierra Leone, etc. are probably positive ones. Certainly the threat of force can and has been used to great and good effect sometimes. Also to fairly bad ones. As such the query “What Would Jesus Do?” is usually quite a good one to ask, and contrary to being an “obey or suffer my wrath” type phrase, should be read as an example to follow.
Anyway, rant over!
'you were meant to glance at your wristband while masturbating, be filled with shame imagining Jesus glaring at you and stop ... I wore one for 2 years' (Jack Target)
I nearly spat out mt whisky reading that.
And my complements of the Christmas season to you too, Pipa.
Imagine, but for the possible events of some two thousand years ago, we might have nothing to discuss here.
Post a Comment
<< Home