Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

A little more on the junkie with liver trouble

Expand Messages
  • winters_diana
    My understanding of the Judeo-Christian God (my Sunday school memories) has him a good bit more compassionate than Tarjei s portrayal, wherein he favors a
    Message 1 of 32 , Mar 24, 2004
      My understanding of the Judeo-Christian God (my Sunday school
      memories) has him a good bit more compassionate than Tarjei's
      portrayal, wherein he favors a "healthy body with a pure heart and
      soul." I'm starting to agree that Tarjei's view of God is racist; he
      also seems to be a eugenicist.

      God incarnated in a human body, I was taught, in order to suffer our
      sufferings and thereby in some measure relieve them. To share
      humanity's burden, first and foremost our *physical* burdens. God, I
      was told in Sunday school, favored the downtrodden, the weak, the
      sick, the dirty, the lame, those with broken bodies and minds as
      well as broken spirits. To be poor would not be enough. To be really
      fucked up would be best yet. The wretchedest with the most loathsome
      diseases of body or soul is the person who is *most* in need of
      redemption and the understanding and empathy of God, who most needs
      God to share his or her experience. That broken body that you cannot
      bear the thought of is the one God would choose. There is no point
      at all to him choosing a healthy and pure body. God was to *take on*
      our sufferings as well as our sins. It would seem the movie The
      Passion stresses this via his suffering of physical violence against
      him; that is just one way to represent his willingness to share all
      the sufferings to which the flesh is prone. Drug addiction would be
      another excellent metaphor for this.

      There is, in short, an excellent case for God as a foul-mouthed
      junkie who mugs your mother.

      The God who favors the strong and healthy is not the God I was
      taught is central to Christianity. The meek shall inherit the earth.


      Tarjei asked:

      "If you're going to heal the sick through inner forces, wouldn't it
      be more effective if you were born healthy and pure?"

      Rank materialism. What do you think "inner force" is – liver
      function?

      "Isn't that what they do at NASA and in the Pentagon? Sorting out
      bodies by 'suitability' for 'missions'?"

      Now we have military metaphors. Your God is like the guys running
      the Pentagon?
      Yes, I would certainly be afraid of your God, Tarjei, if I couldn't
      see that you are merely broadcasting your own views here, and not
      God's.
      Diana
    • at@ael...
      Hi again Daniel, you wrote: These arguments would be nothing new to you, and I doubt you would consider them any more seriously the second time that the
      Message 32 of 32 , Apr 7, 2004
        Hi again Daniel, you wrote:
        "These arguments would be nothing new to you, and I doubt you would consider them any more seriously the second time that the first."
         
        Peter Staudenmaier:
        You're quite right that I do not consider these objections serious. I think they are obviously frivolous. For example, it is extremely easy to show when someone else has taken a quote out of context. All you have to do is provide the preceding or following portions of the text and show that they contradict the original quoted passage. None of you has ever done that. As for mistranslations, you and Detlef believe that *other anthroposophists* have mistranslated both of the texts in question; all you charge me with is agreeing with these anthroposophist translations. If you want me to take your arguments seriously, I'll have to request that you offer some serious arguments. What do you say?
         
        Daniel:
        Read the archives.
         
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.