lets face it, I don't post, wont post, shant post
So this is going to be a quote dump with tags, mostly for my own personal use
Recent activities for October 2026
1 day ago
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
All judgement handed to the one who will not judge
What does it mean that the Father has handed over all judgement to the Son? What on earth does it mean that the Son then will not judge the world, but his words will?
Will people be judged on whether they accepted God's refusal to judge?
Will people be judged on whether they accepted God's refusal to judge?
Holiness
If Holiness is transcendant moral purity, how is God Holy in himself, or is it only in relation to creation that God is holy? Again if holiness is a transcendant standard, how are diverse created beings ever going to attain it, except by massive conformity?
Perhaps holiness is an appropriate relationship (or web of them), grounded in the self giving love of the Trinity. The Father is appropriately and lovingly related to Son and Spirit etc. God is Holy to his creation by being creations loving God, by continuing to be God even when creatures refuse to act as creatures. The holiness required of Israel is fundamentally relational, to God, but especially to the society surrounding each individual. Their seperation from the nations is not arbitrary, but by the means of their relationships being renewed. They are not to be like the nations, but they are with them.
Jesus is Holy in his self giving love, peculiar to his identity as saviour of the world.
This allows particularity in our conception of holiness today. My holiness will resemble but not be the same as yours, since we are in a related but different set of relationships and situations. The way in which we are appropriately related through self giving love in each will vary.
Hmm, don't know where to go with this
Perhaps holiness is an appropriate relationship (or web of them), grounded in the self giving love of the Trinity. The Father is appropriately and lovingly related to Son and Spirit etc. God is Holy to his creation by being creations loving God, by continuing to be God even when creatures refuse to act as creatures. The holiness required of Israel is fundamentally relational, to God, but especially to the society surrounding each individual. Their seperation from the nations is not arbitrary, but by the means of their relationships being renewed. They are not to be like the nations, but they are with them.
Jesus is Holy in his self giving love, peculiar to his identity as saviour of the world.
This allows particularity in our conception of holiness today. My holiness will resemble but not be the same as yours, since we are in a related but different set of relationships and situations. The way in which we are appropriately related through self giving love in each will vary.
Hmm, don't know where to go with this
Theology, History, Exegesis
As we spend weeks wadeing into the minutae of Greek syntax and small texts, I can't help but ask why. The constant refrain is that it is context that most controls meaning. Sure, exegesis is an important skill, but
Theology and History are more important, since the ultimate context of any text is God and his world
Theology and History are more important, since the ultimate context of any text is God and his world
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Everything is A-ok if you own the world
"However, it would be too strong to say that no high official in Washington called for immediate withdrawal. There were some. The strongest one I know of -- when asked what is the solution to the problem in Iraq -- said it's quite obvious, "Withdraw all foreign forces and withdraw all foreign arms." That official was Condoleeza Rice and she was not referring to U.S. forces, she was referring to Iranian forces and Iranian arms. And that makes sense, too, on the assumption that we own the world because, since we own the world U.S. forces cannot be foreign forces anywhere. So if we invade Iraq or Canada, say, we are the indigenous forces. It's the Iranians that are foreign forces.
I waited for a while to see if anyone, at least in the press or journals, would point out that there was something funny about this. I could not find a word. I think everyone regarded that as a perfectly sensible comment. But I could not see a word from anyone who said, wait a second, there are foreign forces there, 150,000 American troops, plenty of American arms.
So it is reasonable that when British sailors were captured in the Gulf by Iranian forces, there was debate, "Were they in Iranian borders or in Iraqi borders? Actually there is no answer to this because there is no territorial boundary, and that was pointed out. It was taken for granted that if the British sailors were in Iraqi waters, then Iran was guilty of a crime by intervening in foreign territory. But Britain is not guilty of a crime by being in Iraqi territory, because Britain is a U.S. client state, and we own the world, so they are there by right.
What about the possible next war, Iran? There have been very credible threats by the U.S. and Israel -- essentially a U.S. client -- to attack Iran. There happens to be something called the UN Charter which says that -- in Article 2 -- the threat or use of force in international affairs is a crime. "Threat or use of force."
Does anybody care? No, because we're an outlaw state by definition, or to be more precise, our threats and use of force are not foreign, they're indigenous because we own the world. Therefore, it's fine. So there are threats to bomb Iran -- maybe we will and maybe we won't. That is the debate that goes on. Is it legitimate if we decide to do it? People might argue it's a mistake. But does anyone say it would be illegitimate? For example, the Democrats in Congress refuse to put in an amendment that would require the Executive to inform Congress if it intends to bomb Iran -- to consult, inform. Even that was not accepted."
Noam Chomsky
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20080101.htm
I waited for a while to see if anyone, at least in the press or journals, would point out that there was something funny about this. I could not find a word. I think everyone regarded that as a perfectly sensible comment. But I could not see a word from anyone who said, wait a second, there are foreign forces there, 150,000 American troops, plenty of American arms.
So it is reasonable that when British sailors were captured in the Gulf by Iranian forces, there was debate, "Were they in Iranian borders or in Iraqi borders? Actually there is no answer to this because there is no territorial boundary, and that was pointed out. It was taken for granted that if the British sailors were in Iraqi waters, then Iran was guilty of a crime by intervening in foreign territory. But Britain is not guilty of a crime by being in Iraqi territory, because Britain is a U.S. client state, and we own the world, so they are there by right.
What about the possible next war, Iran? There have been very credible threats by the U.S. and Israel -- essentially a U.S. client -- to attack Iran. There happens to be something called the UN Charter which says that -- in Article 2 -- the threat or use of force in international affairs is a crime. "Threat or use of force."
Does anybody care? No, because we're an outlaw state by definition, or to be more precise, our threats and use of force are not foreign, they're indigenous because we own the world. Therefore, it's fine. So there are threats to bomb Iran -- maybe we will and maybe we won't. That is the debate that goes on. Is it legitimate if we decide to do it? People might argue it's a mistake. But does anyone say it would be illegitimate? For example, the Democrats in Congress refuse to put in an amendment that would require the Executive to inform Congress if it intends to bomb Iran -- to consult, inform. Even that was not accepted."
Noam Chomsky
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20080101.htm
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
