HS, you talk about my not using citations, but you don’t, either.
There is one citation I badly need. You say,
“As far as members of other races not thinking these things, they did and do.”
Remember I am not talking about some Chinese philosopher mentioning whether life is worth living. Some Chinese philosopher sat and talked about everything while children died and had worms in their guts around him.
I am not talking about theorizing.
If you read the Norsemen’s sayings, you will see that they were discouraging others from actually killing themselves, not because of some evil deed or some tragedy, but because they just didn’t want to live any more.
Suicide was very common in Japan, but it was only committed when one had been disgraced or done something inexcusable and suicide was the ultimate apology for it.
Philosophizing in some obscure text about whether life is worth living or committing suicide at a crisis has nothing to do with the point I made.
I have never heard that suicide was at all common in China as it was in Japan.
But, since I gave up all hope of being elected to the Papacy, my dreams of infallibility have been dashed, so I am open to contradiction on a FACTUAL basis.
I see no evidence that the non-violent human sacrifices made in monasteries and convents came from any non-Aryan tradition. Except for Christians, the Buddhists alone have chaste monks, and Buddhism comes from white India.
Again, I am open to FACTUAL contradiction.
If you will read the Christian stories of the fifth century, you will see that the ultimate heroine is a beautiful, good, intelligent woman who marries an equally fine man and then persuades him to live with her in chastity for the rest of their lives.
Chaste people did not produce many offspring. That stork story is not true.
Paul was one of the most important and forgotten peoples in history, a Hellenic Jew, a Roman citizen. Millions of Hellenic Jews existed at the time of Christ. The historian Josephus was one of them. They disappeared entirely as Christianity advanced, and I do not think it was because the Romans killed six million Jews.
Hellenic Jews wrote their scriptures in Greek. I think if you looked at them, you would be amazed how blond they were. There are depictions of Peter and Paul from the first century, and they are both depicted as very light-skinned and one of them is blond.
A Methodist preacher wrote me that all those Hellenized Jews at the time of Christ were not Jews, they were Gnostics. That is one hell of an anachronism.
He also informed me that Christ and all His disciples were COLORED MEN, without any citation. He told me that the first white Christian was Luke. Again, no evidence.
Apparently that is what they teach at mainline seminaries now and their real religion, Political Correctness, requires them to accept it.
Peter says that Paul never hinted that people should not procreate; he only advocated sex inside marriage.
Paul wrote the Book of Corinthians. Let me quote from it:
1 Cor 7:1,2,4,8,9
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. I say therefore to the UNMARRIED (My capitalization) and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. BUT IF THEY CANNOT CONTAIN, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
Paul and the Christian moral stories said that the ideal is that one should NEVER have sex in one’s entire life.
Either the Roman Empire had artificial insemination — and I would LOVE to see a citation on THAT one — or Paul is recommending childlessness as the Christian ideal.
#1 by Peter on 06/24/2005 - 3:30 am
I may be missing something here, but it seems to me Paul is talking about fornication. If you are single, you should stay chaste like Paul, but if you can’t contain yourself and are fornicating, then get married? Because if your life is totally overtaken by the sensual, you will lose sight of the spiritual, and you will pay the price?
#2 by Peter on 06/24/2005 - 3:53 am
(Strong’s:) Egkrateuomai
to be self-controlled, continent
to exhibit self-government, conduct, one’s self temperately
**in a figure drawn from athletes, who in preparing themselves for the games abstained from unwholesome food, wine, and sexual indulgence**
It sounds like those who are single should control themselves and not constantly have sex so they can wait for a real relationship. He also talks about doing things only with consent of the other, and not to use each other for fleeting personal gratification.
He also talks about fasting — but he obviously doesn’t want anyone to starve to death.
I think he is preaching against _sex-aholism_, not against sex itself. He even talks about others’ gifts; (v 7) “every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.” In this context, that sounds like a gift for, ahem, making babies! In v 3 he says: “Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. ” I think he is wording it politely. But maybe one day I will be able to say, “Honey, I am in the mood for some due benevolence. How about you?”
He also doesn’t say “it is bad to touch a woman,” but (v 1) “it is good not to” and immediately gives the example of fornication, which Strong’s says means all kinds of illicit sex.
#3 by H.S. on 06/24/2005 - 8:53 am
Bob, Peter, I never stated or implied a complaint that you didn’t use citations.
Remember your history lesson? We’re in a quandary now.
I have read and been taught about the Civil War. I could cite many sources for what I used to think was fact. I can cite many historical facts from properly certified sources from such as The Rise And The Fall of The Third Reich about Nazi Germany.
Verifying the verifiers and gaining access to contrary primary source material is a task as you both (and the entire blog) know. I have listened to debates carefully prepared by southerners of southern heritage who take opposing positions. They both appear to be well cited, but to those who COME from the context and who can think and reason straight on, the truth can be plainly seen.
But I can cite. I did not because you have said and demonstrated that you don’t prefer that. I have gone after it on many occasions here.
In the above you LEAVE OUT THE ENTIRE CONTEXT from which he wrote that group those things. He was battling through the WHOLE book a group of mind-sets which he narrowly met and came at hard.
And, tell me, what was his point? IMO you missed it. Within the context and to MAKE his point, what he said was on its face truth.
His point was made in somewhat the same ways you do. I will answer.
And Peter, beauty is of HIGH VALUE to me also. Natural and man-made. I can take hours going through old historical places and bother those I’m with because I can’t stand not seeing every detail and reading every word.
#4 by Bob on 06/24/2005 - 9:36 am
Peter, I cannot imagine how you could misunderstand this, I put it in CAPS:
“I say therefore to the UNMARRIED (My capitalization) and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as” I. BUT IF THEY CANNOT CONTAIN, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.”
I cannot understand how you can misunderstand the point he is making, that the unmarried should NEVER marry, but if they simply cannot contain their lust, their must marry to have sex.
Can you honestly say that you cannot see how he is saying that the ideal Christian will have no children at all?
Paul’s ideal was a sterile world, and I cannot see how he put it more plainly than that.
#5 by Elizabeth on 06/24/2005 - 4:50 pm
I’ve seen photographs of very early depictions of Peter and Paul. I don’t know about one of them being depicted as blonde, but Paul has always been depicted as balding, and both have always been depicted as bearded. There are some very, very, very early depictions of Christ as beardless, but those depictions are so early most could be depictions of Mithras.
Christian monasticism arose during the waning days of the Roman Empire,when society was going to hell in a handbasket — taxes were astronomical, the government was literally in everyone’s face [A generation or so before Constantine, an emperor made it a LAW that every man had to enter his father’s profession.], new diseases had been coming in [Major epidemic–possibly the first appearance of either measles or chickenpox–hit in 180AD and killed thousands.], inflation was galloping, corruption was rampant…..of course people wanted to retreat, live behind walls, and devote their lives to prayer! (Think of a 200-year Carter Administration!)
#6 by Peter on 06/25/2005 - 12:56 am
If Paul meant “I say therefore to the UNMARRIED and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I AM UNMARRIED,” it would have been odd and redundant. From the whole of the context, wherein he recommends marriage, it is easier and natural to read it: “I say therefore to the UNMARRIED and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I” AM CHASTE.
“Can you honestly say that you cannot see how he is saying that the ideal Christian will have no children at all?”
No, and that is historically an unusual interpretation. No Christian, real or nominal, I have met thinks that. The Cathars did. That’s why they were a heresy. Even traditional Roman catholics that don’t believe in sex, believe they should have lots of children.
Eastern Orthodox, traditional Anglicans and others don’t interpret it that conjugal relations are entirely bad. If you grew up in a conservative Episcopalian parish near Chaleston, instead of country Methodist, maybe you wouldn’t interpret it this way.
Bob, you are thinking like a disgruntled Puritan.
#7 by Peter on 06/25/2005 - 1:53 am
By the way, I showed the Gk definition of CONTAIN to show that it doesn’t mean abstain; it means self-control, to delay or lessen something which one will eventually get at the right time. I even think there is enough latitude in the wording to allow a variety of interpretation; except the one that all conjugality is bad.
You also left out the part where Paul equally recommends the occasional fast. It’s not that eating is bad, it is that a man must have mastery over himself and his body. His body is a tool, but it is his master if he can’t ever say no to it, if he cannot CONTAIN. That’s why everyone is fat at 24 these days.
***
HS:
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I just sensed that you thought he was writing poppycock, but I thought that he would have to cite something to prove that he wasn’t saying poppycock. Then I realized his comments about Paul were poppycock. So I said I agreed with you. Then he cited what he meant, and I feel even more strongly that it was poppycock all along. The thing is, I have been listening my whole life to my angry uncles, who are about Bob’s age and younger, complain about the same things, using the same words and the same verses. So I have had a long time to think about it. At first I thought they might have had something, then I realized it was poppycock.
So when I hear Bob rant about Paul, I think to myself, “Here we go again, just like my uncles.”
#8 by H.S. on 06/26/2005 - 1:22 am
Peter: I responded that way in general because to some extent we have been down this road before and Richard had weighed in. Yes, and Bob was (as he is unless he changes his mind on a particular point) very consistent with the same citation and reasoning. Our evaluation matches that of everything I have read in the Bible itself and been taught from 4 major denominations – all protestant. I like very much what you had to say.
“So when I hear Bob rant about Paul, I think to myself, “Here we go again, just like my uncles.” –Peter
Ahahaha. I have only heard this around the blog and in a couple churches brave enough to really deal with it. In college is where I learned it to be primarily a Roman Catholic issue – in Psyche 101 of all places & in THIS blog – about 1974 or so. This instructor was VERY careful to not be negative about any denomination or its doctrines and no one was offended and to be sure the R.C.s were the first to agree. We were studying patient casework demonstrating power of the mind over body in deeply held core beliefs and how they affect real biology. When deep, deep conflict occurs between two “opposing rights” (one right not being one in actuality) the higher order principle will prevail and may even be consequential enough to “force” the “ability” to meet both “responsibilities.” The issue was one close to that above. The woman had actually self-induced inexplicable paraplegia. (psychosomatic)
However, and this a BIG however …. all this is good to know, we sharpen one another because core beliefs are what we operate out of, we all are not on level ground here. Part of what the Gnostics (and other ideas) were cashing in on was, and still IS, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit – Old Testament to the New. That is ALL spiritual. That is ALL a faith issue that is then only sometimes authenticated by God directly through observable reality, provable by “scientific means.” There IS knowledge that all individuals have access to but only some apprehend according to His rules – direct answers to personal prayer circumstances. He was quoted Himself and through others that He is intimately acquainted with you and desires a personal relationship through prayer with those He has redeemed at the highest price.
There lies the playground of imaginaries and fools and charlatans and “beady-eyed” theologians and the superstitious mumbo-jumbos hunting needy souls. If there is no written directive to rein in the emotions, the sinner’s mind, the will, the weaker in faith, the psychomanipulators — then absolutely anything goes because, “God made me do it.” Anathema! We all have to live by rules.
Bob (I don’t know about Peter or Elizabeth) has stated before (and please correct me if I misinterpret) that he does not believe AT ALL that the Bible or any other written document available to mankind contains the ACTUAL WORDS of God Himself – the I AM, whom Jesus on many occasions confessed that He was in what we define as “Scriptures.” That NO PART of the Bible (in its original language or otherwise) is “God-breathed” inspired words via the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in His chosen born-again men. And especially thereby, that God in a sovereign act does not preserve His Word to each generation as worked out by Him over time in the spread of His Word. Not worshipping a bound bunch of papers with ink on them – but judging the words and ideas to be His. (Can you imagine the shrine and worship and fighting that men would have over owning an original author-penned document?!)
That breaks the legs of the deepest and most sincere conversation between people who are called to love each other to reach final conclusions (if one can be had given the subject). Be you Holy as I am Holy – how? Learn of Me for I am a humble servant to all. Where?
I believe that because Jesus is who He says He is and the justified shall live by faith, even that like a little child, and that is of Him alone so that no person may brag that they somehow comprehended and apprehended the very God who created it all, then He will work in His own one way or another. “Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.” This is why I cannot put IMO in front of some things people think I should. It isn’t MO. IMO most basics are plainly stated, that’s one reason men wanted a literate people and faithful translations.
This is tough stuff if you think the blood brother of Jesus did not hear this from his Brother: “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.” If it is not true, then I am the biggest fool and need to be pitied. But even were it not – IMO I have been better off believing them to be true. I haven’t noticed I’ve moved any “mountains” yet, so my mustard seed sits next to yours.
On comparing the most well-known Christian authors, (IMO) we in our millennia beyond Jesus rely on and prognosticate and infer far too much about “who” or “what” influences tracts forward through the pages of letters and theses and statements of past Christian apologists. As technology helps find more pieces of evidence, that becomes more obvious.
Bob is right. One makes decisions based on conscience (or lack thereof), the facts you do know at hand, the prevailing legal system and what’s best for the community and leave it to God to judge you. I have no idea what Bob’s written about most things. How many pages has Robert W. Whitaker written? More than Calvin by now? Granted, no one yet is searching his writings for “Biblical” tests to see if they “like” his denomination, but MANY have tested him out for his practical wisdom and knowledge, writing skills and apologetics of White Nationalism and populist political (the law) engagement. Would HE say that there is one man he really believes everything from and that’s how RWW came to be what he is and that’s how we can trace his influence lineage? No – would be my guess. He went about becoming who he is like other thinkers.
Context and audience is absolutely KEY. If we don’t know, we don’t know and then it’s educated and reasoned investigative guesswork. Paul states as authorization to weak churches that he spent much personal time with the incarnate Jesus right after his very public and extremely “miraculous” conversion. Jesus set him up with an authorizing that He gave to no one else – not BETTER or MORE – but pure Divine intervention that those who eye-witnessed could give absolute testimony (court accepted). Paul said he needed to overcome the fact that he was a “murderer for God” before Jesus called him out and saved him. As Saul before Jesus changed his name, Paul was the genius prosecuting attorney for the Sanhedrin, a Roman citizen by birth, going after every last “Christian” (leaders especially) he could lay his hands on to turn them over for the death sentence, the same as they did to Jesus. No duh he knew what a Judaizer was.
But ON! before Mark falls asleep in the window, crashes to the ground and needs healing!
#9 by Peter on 06/27/2005 - 1:25 am
I hope I haven’t offended Bob, the GWTEL. He seeks candor, so I doubt I did. And what other man of his stature would let himself be so approachable? This is a virtue, a sign of conscience.
#10 by Peter on 06/27/2005 - 2:12 am
Good stuff, HS. I read every word. Nicely put, too.
#11 by Bob on 06/27/2005 - 6:33 am
Peter, of course you haven’t offended me. My problem is always just the opposite.
If you can take the heat, please stay in this kitchen and we’ll keep the sweat up.
#12 by H.S. on 06/27/2005 - 9:31 pm
Peter, you are long-suffering…. and I think you know where it comes from.
As a student, what do you need non-student friends to be involved with so that the system might be pushed over? It’s hard enough without adding more projects to projects.
I believe in another system of education and have no “good memories” or “beauty” to ever even think I would want anyone involved in what I went through in five years. I know good people that believe every word Bob or I say about it, but then they go right out and pay for the child(ren) to waste their time there. It’s just paying your dues and hopefully getting some good instructors that really do want to educate and expect you to learn.
Some parallel education programs are doing it all with better results and in less than half the time and placing 100% of their people. They too are simplists. It does take CREATIVE work though. It’s not as stable as it will become. People default to letting someone else do their work for them and the children have to go somewhere if they can’t find a program. The vast majority of sheep kids wouldn’t even consider doing anything else. They wouldn’t know where to turn.
#13 by Peter on 06/27/2005 - 10:27 pm
“Some parallel education programs are doing it all with better results and in less than half the time and placing 100% of their people. They too are simplists. It does take CREATIVE work though. It’s not as stable as it will become. People default to letting someone else do their work for them and the children have to go somewhere if they can’t find a program. The vast majority of sheep kids wouldn’t even consider doing anything else. They wouldn’t know where to turn.”
*Are they hiring?
“As a student, what do you need non-student friends to be involved with so that the system might be pushed over? It’s hard enough without adding more projects to projects.”
*Intriguing. Explain…