Matt and Madeleine Flannagan (MandM Blog)
The Bradley vs. Flannagan debate is on YouTube in twelve parts (Part 1 above).
Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12
Civil Society Merely Skin Deep.
What separates our Modern society from savagery and Barbarism? Not a Lot.
If we are to assume We enjoy a higher quality of life today because of Lessons hard learned from the mistakes of history, I regret to say we are fast forgetting them…and thus doomed to repeat the process.
I was stimulated to such contemplations today when confronted by blunt and self-righteous calls to not bother giving The Norwegian Mass murderer Brevick a trial… apparently He does not deserve one… but ought to be lynched or shot.
Silly me. Here was I criticizing the Norwegian justice system for not allowing Anders Behring Breivik to say what he wanted in his own defence (Apparently they feel that if they allow him to read his 8000 word ‘New Manifesto’ that he will somehow be ‘winning a personal victory’… or may inspire other psychos to join his cause). I was saying that The Trial needs to follow due process, not muzzle the defendant… yet I was met with howls of Hatred that said that no trial was necessary…
“You would not be ‘so easy’ on him if he had killed one of your kids.” Quoth He.
I tried to explain to my detractors that if they were to simply execute him that they would in fact be no better than him, as he thought he had the right to execute 77 people without trial too.
I said It is vitally important that He gets a proper defence and is not unduly restricted from voicing his reasons why he did what he did.
That this will involve enduring a hatful and deluded tirade, which he will no doubt take great pleasure in preaching to the Media of the world… is not a good enough reason to deny him due process.
“The Bastard does not deserve it”… !!!! ???
A Fair trial is not a reward, Its not a prize, It’s an essential process which attempts to assure an Impartial judgement so that innocent people are not wrongfully punished. This is part of the vital machinery which differentiates a Civil society from a barbaric one governed by UTU/ vengeance.
“The Court case will cost Millions of Dollars! Why waste the money on a scum bag like him!” Quoth He…
I replied that I much prefer my Taxes go towards having a good justice system, rather than Paying hundreds of millions of Dollars in ‘bail outs’ or to Bludgers to sit on the dole or DPB!
I said that having a well organised and funded Justice system is one of the Few Legitimate and necessary duties of Government.
Was this little smoko room chat an oddity or was it an indication of a common mindset?
It appears to me that here in NZ, as in Norway that people have indeed forgotten what justice and civilisation is all about. Today people are more concerned with vengeance, and are not prepared to endure what must be endured for the sake of Justice.
Yes It is scary to realise just how thin is the skin of our civilisation… how close to Barbarism we lurk, and how easily tyranny could take advantage of the prevailing darkness.
I hope the Norwegians give Brevick a fair and just trial.
That is the only way he can be convicted fairly and justly punished… And Norway can maintain their claim to be a civil society.
Tim Wikiriwhi.
Hell: The Logic of Damnation.
Book Reveiw. http://undpress.nd.edu/book/P00167
“Focusing on the issues from the standpoint of philosophical theology, Walls explores the doctrine of hell in relation to both the divine nature and human nature. He argues that some traditional versions of the doctrine are compatible not only with God’s omnipotence and omniscience, but also with a strong account of His perfect goodness.”
Reviews
“This book is a gem, clearly written and accessible to philosophers and non-philosophers alike. Within a fairly brief scope it covers the central issues and arguments relevant to its topic . . . Further, the book makes a case that universalists will find very hard to answer.” —Religious Studies
“Walls . . . does not think that because a culture trivializes the concept of hell it does not exist, nor does he think that belief in the existence of hell compromises belief in a good and loving God.”—Christian Century
“Hell: The Logic of Damnation is a forcefully argued reopening of questions that most liberal theologians had long thought to be decisively closed. . . . Jerry Walls has provided a bracing antidote to the moral frivolity and evil of our time.”—First Things
Sorry about this next one Richard. Get well soon Robin!
Bill Bailey.
Rosetta Stoned
Hell in the Teachings of Jesus (Part 3)
This is the eleventh in a 13-part series wherein I give you Hell, a little booklet by the inimitable Dr. Jeff Obadiah Simmonds.
A very significant text is Matthew 25.41, 46:
“Then he will say to those on his left: ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels’…”
…Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”This is a key verse for those who believe in an eternal torment for the unrighteous.
Firstly, we read that hell is “an eternal fire”—we may admit that hell itself is eternal, but not necessarily that those thrown into it will be eternally tormented. Again, an “eternal punishment” is one which endures forever. Remember the message of Isaiah concerning the Edomites—this will be an “eternal punishment”: no survivors will remain. In this way “all evildoers… will be forever destroyed” (Ps 92.7).
The fate of the wicked is contrasted with that of the righteous—which is “eternal life” or immortality. If the righteous receive eternal life as a reward, the wicked do not receive eternal life, they receive eternal death—an eternal punishment not of torment but of extinction.
The word “punishment” here is derived from a Greek word meaning “to prune” trees. If one imagines humanity as a tree with good and bad branches, the judgement is one in which the bad branches will be pruned and cut off from the source of life, so that they die. Jesus said:
“I am the vine, you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in Me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.” (John 15.5-6)
Again, the image of fire is one of destruction. Having been removed from its life-source, the branch “withers” and becomes dead wood. In a similar way, God—the One who is immortal—is our source of life. Those who are removed from Him wither and perish. They are thrown into the fire, not as “immortal souls” in endless torment, but as dead wood which is consumed and is no more.
Again, we must ask what the point of the parable of the sheep and the goats is. Those who receive this “eternal punishment” are those who have not visited the sick and imprisoned, fed the hungry, given clothing to the naked and shown hospitality to the stranger. It would be incomprehensible if God were to punish those who have not alleviated suffering by causing infinitely more suffering Himself. God would be condemning flawed humans for doing something that He Himself does! Indeed, God’s actions would be worse than those He is condemning, since the damned are merely those who passively did not help those who suffered, whereas God would be actively causing endless suffering.
However, we should understand this judgement to be one in which they depart “into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Mt 25.41), a fire which consumes and destroys that which is thrown into it.
There are actually two words used in the Gospels which are translated as “hell.” The first, Hades, is the equivalent of the Hebrew word “Sheol.” This refers not to “hell” as such—to a place of eternal torment—but to the abode of the dead. Often, in the Old Testament, this is simply translated as “the grave.”
The other word is “Gehenna.” This was an actual place outside Jerusalem. Gehenna was the name of the city dump of Jerusalem. It was a ravine south of the city—rubbish, animal carcasses and the corpses of criminals were thrown into this refuse pit. This tip was constantly burning. Jesus used this image of Gehenna to refer to the fate of the unrepentant. However, a criminal thrown into Gehenna was already dead—he was not tormented by the fire which burned day and night. The image, therefore, is one of extinction and destruction, not of enduring torture. There are half a dozen references to this valley in the Gospel of Matthew.
Jesus says that a person who calls another person “fool” will be “in danger of the fire of Gehenna” (Mt 5.22). Is Jesus saying that those who call others “fools” will be eternally tortured in an after-life in the centre of the earth? Or is He using the metaphor, familiar to His audience, of destruction?
Jesus said that it is better to enter heaven with one eye than be thrown into “Gehenna” with two, where “the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9.48). This is also taken as evidence for an eternal torment. However, unquenchable fire and undying worms do not necessarily demand an eternal torment. Jesus is quoting Isaiah 66.24:
And they will go and look at the dead bodies of those who rebelled against Me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.
These “worms,” or maggots, feed on corpses—on dead bodies—not on the living. Those upon whom the maggots feed are not being tormented, but have ceased to be.
Are you lego or logos?
Are you lego or logos?
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Philosopher Nicholas F. Gier explains the Logos Christology of the Gospel of John.
The famous prologue begins: “In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God, and the logos was God.” The standard English translation of logos is Word, following the basic meaning of lego as to say or speak. In other words, God is the author of the logic of the world, and his son is the expression of this logic. Furthermore, in the Genesis account of creation God speaks, or as Leonard Bernstein has suggested, sings the structure of the world into being. In Christian theology Christ is the one who orders the world; he is the one who puts it together, gives it meaning, and then redeems it from its fallen state. As Paul states: “For in him all things were created . . . and in him all things hold together” (Col. 1:16-17).
The etymology of the logos, the Greek word behind “reason” and “logic,” shows that the idea of synthesis is at the origin of these words. The Greek logos is the verbal noun of lego, which, if we follow one root leg means “to gather,” “to collect,” “to pick up,” “to put together,” and later “to speak or say.” We already have the basic ideas of any rational endeavor. We begin by collecting individual facts and thoughts and put them together in an orderly way and usually say something about what we have created.
There are three Reasons that I prefer Andrew Sullivan’s translation (and mine) of λόγος.
In the beginning was Reason, and Reason was with God, and Reason was God.
[Proudly powered by LOGOS™.]
Way too Starry for Atheism.
The Beautiful Ellie Goulding. “I’m a Believer!”
“For the invisible things of Him from the Creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so they are without excuse”
St Paul Romans 1vs20
How is it possible to think *all this* has no design, no meaning?
Tim Wikiriwhi
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (St Paul Colossians 2vs8)
The fool hath said in his heart “There is not God”.
Jesus said….”Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.”
Jefferson’s best friend
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. …
In a letter to John Adams (24 January 1814), Thomas Jefferson wrote
The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
In a letter to letter to Benjamin Waterhouse (13 October 1815), he wrote
The priests have so disfigured the simple religion of Jesus that no one who reads the sophistications they have engrafted on it, from the jargon of Plato, of Aristotle and other mystics, would conceive these could have been fathered on the sublime preacher of the Sermon on the Mount. Yet, knowing the importance of names, they have assumed that of Christians, while they are mere Platonists, or anything rather than disciples of Jesus.
In a letter to William Short (31 October 1819), he wrote
The greatest of all the reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill.
The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth is better known as The Jefferson Bible. Read it here.
I am a Christian
“I am a Christian,” wrote Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Benjamin Rush.
To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other.
Was Jefferson a Christian? Discuss.
You may say, “It depends on what you mean by ‘Christian’,” but it doesn’t. Was Jefferson a Christian? The truth depends on historical facts about Jefferson and what he believed, not on contemporary facts about me and what I had in mind when I asked the question.
The meaning of a word depends on the conventions that govern its use.
I can use the word ‘Christian’ in an unconventional sense. But if I do, then until and unless my non-standard use of the word catches on and itself becomes part of the norm, there is a mismatch between what I say and what I mean. To take a different example, when Ayn Rand said that selfishness is a virtue, she did not mean what she said. (She said that selfishness is a virtue. But it’s not.) She did, however, say what she meant. (She meant that self-interest is a virtue. And it is.)
The conventions which govern our use of the word ‘Christian’ allow for more than one distinct sense of the word. For example, there are nominal Christians, cultural Christians, liberal Christians, fundamentalist Christians, practising Christians, denominational Christians, non-denominational Christians, and so on. But the conventions which govern our use of the word ‘Christian’ also determine a primary sense of the word.
Was Jefferson a real Christian? Discuss.
