"I use the King James translation like most people. Again, you miss my point which is based on one simple and unassailable observation: only the Gospels purport to give an account of the life and sayings of Jesus."
Which is why the concepts I threw at you were from the Gospels. The fig tree parable was in Luke. The line about achieving holiness through Jesus is in John. Leaving your family is from Luke. Are you saying that I'm confusing Paul for the Gospels or are you willfully ignoring the interpretations I am taking from the same fucking source material?
What you're saying is that some number of people (n) see Jesus and the Buddha are the same.I know the Gospels pretty well, thank you Catholic upbringing. I know the message is superficially like that of the Buddha, but once you scrape past the surface, the paths diverge significantly. You don't need Paul to see that Jesus is preaching about a life thereafter full of holiness and a very different way of achieving it (versus that preached by the Buddha). Being nice to people is meshed with accepting Jesus as the savior...or were you and I reading a very different Gospel of Luke?
"You find my prose dense? Ah well. I try to be as clear as possible and I think I usually succeed. Would you prefer that I write in loose fragments"
And now you're just being obtuse. You use Shakespeare, which I call out as being dense, then backpedal and reassign it to your writing style. I write in fragments because this isn't a legal brief or a dissertation. This is a computer post that I'm slapping out in the space of 10 minutes or so. I don't need to string together paragraphs when in this setting, brevity is preferred.
"What could possibly be clearer than that I am making a distinction between theology and ethics? "
Christian ethics and Christian theology are intertwined.The basis for the ethics is the theology. You can't skim the top off, as I said, and pretend that the base doesn't exist. At best, it's like listening to Wagner as a Jew, when you need to actively accept that he made wonderful music while being a hateful person. To avoid being in that mental space, why even use the word? You can be nice to people without even referring to Christianity. Call it tikkun olam. Call it a variant of dharma. Are Jews and Hindus just not cool enough for you? Or do you use Christianity because the plebes will have an easier time understanding it.
You can insult me and I will insult right back. I'm a very persistent forum troll.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-05-22 02:41 pm (UTC)Which is why the concepts I threw at you were from the Gospels. The fig tree parable was in Luke. The line about achieving holiness through Jesus is in John. Leaving your family is from Luke. Are you saying that I'm confusing Paul for the Gospels or are you willfully ignoring the interpretations I am taking from the same fucking source material?
What you're saying is that some number of people (n) see Jesus and the Buddha are the same.I know the Gospels pretty well, thank you Catholic upbringing. I know the message is superficially like that of the Buddha, but once you scrape past the surface, the paths diverge significantly. You don't need Paul to see that Jesus is preaching about a life thereafter full of holiness and a very different way of achieving it (versus that preached by the Buddha). Being nice to people is meshed with accepting Jesus as the savior...or were you and I reading a very different Gospel of Luke?
"You find my prose dense? Ah well. I try to be as clear as possible and I think I usually succeed. Would you prefer that I write in loose fragments"
And now you're just being obtuse. You use Shakespeare, which I call out as being dense, then backpedal and reassign it to your writing style. I write in fragments because this isn't a legal brief or a dissertation. This is a computer post that I'm slapping out in the space of 10 minutes or so. I don't need to string together paragraphs when in this setting, brevity is preferred.
"What could possibly be clearer than that I am making a distinction between theology and ethics? "
Christian ethics and Christian theology are intertwined.The basis for the ethics is the theology. You can't skim the top off, as I said, and pretend that the base doesn't exist. At best, it's like listening to Wagner as a Jew, when you need to actively accept that he made wonderful music while being a hateful person. To avoid being in that mental space, why even use the word? You can be nice to people without even referring to Christianity. Call it tikkun olam. Call it a variant of dharma. Are Jews and Hindus just not cool enough for you? Or do you use Christianity because the plebes will have an easier time understanding it.
You can insult me and I will insult right back. I'm a very persistent forum troll.