A little more on the junkie with liver trouble
- 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.
"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
"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
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
- 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.