"...for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness." 1 Tim. 2:2
Why does Paul say this? Because it "pleases God our Savior, who wants ALL MEN to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (v.3-4).
How often this second verse and its necessary connection to the first has been overlooked!! Paul is basically saying this: Pray for leaders; God wants them to be saved, and if they are saved they will be sure to use their authority to bring peace to the Christians. Why else would Paul go to the trouble of attaching to his prayer exhortation a theological description of God's salvific purposes? The movement of thought is very plain.
Monday, June 24, 2013
Constraining Jesus by his Jewishness is very foolish indeed.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were made through Him..." -John 1:1-3a
It belongs to the person of Jesus, his essential person, to be the Eternal God. Jesus is no less Jesus throughout all of the countless eras existing before there was so much as a human conception of Israel.
amhn amhn legw umin prin abraam genesqai egw eimi
Before Abraham even comes into being, Jesus IS. Making Jewishness THE deciding factor of Jesus' being (and believe me, this seems to be every scholar's wet dream today) is nothing short of atheistic blindness. One might as well say that because Jesus walked the earth with corruptible flesh; his pre-existence must be defined according to the laws of corruptible flesh.
Jewishness is a mere cultural contingency. Culture cannot even be a static quality of humanity, for there is no situation wherein a human is not utterly free to renounce this or that culture in favor of another one. Thus we do not arrive at the irreducible person when we have gained a glimpse at his culture. This is an accidental quality, deserving of proper description and consideration but nonetheless accidental. In the case of Jesus, we can even lay aside these historical principles and simply bow before the fact that Jesus is not FIRST man, but very God of very God. The blind world and the blind christian intelligentsia can stick that in its pipe and smoke it.
It belongs to the person of Jesus, his essential person, to be the Eternal God. Jesus is no less Jesus throughout all of the countless eras existing before there was so much as a human conception of Israel.
amhn amhn legw umin prin abraam genesqai egw eimi
Before Abraham even comes into being, Jesus IS. Making Jewishness THE deciding factor of Jesus' being (and believe me, this seems to be every scholar's wet dream today) is nothing short of atheistic blindness. One might as well say that because Jesus walked the earth with corruptible flesh; his pre-existence must be defined according to the laws of corruptible flesh.
Jewishness is a mere cultural contingency. Culture cannot even be a static quality of humanity, for there is no situation wherein a human is not utterly free to renounce this or that culture in favor of another one. Thus we do not arrive at the irreducible person when we have gained a glimpse at his culture. This is an accidental quality, deserving of proper description and consideration but nonetheless accidental. In the case of Jesus, we can even lay aside these historical principles and simply bow before the fact that Jesus is not FIRST man, but very God of very God. The blind world and the blind christian intelligentsia can stick that in its pipe and smoke it.
It still baffles me that Constantine is hated on by Christians.
For what? Potentially creating a theocracy or a Christendom (although these two endeavors remain to be historically proven)? Why don't these slimeballs direct their wrath against, well, nearly every Old Testament King or political leader? Ah but yes, these were anointed by God for their tasks. Then the Word of God stands against your political theologies you fucking idiots.
That anyone by the name of Christian could reasonably lament the legalisation of Christianity, and the influence of the Christian gospel in the political sphere solidly BAFFLES me. I wish for these asswipes nothing better than a speedy deportation to a land and a situation where no such graces are offered, that they may have neither my prayers nor my concern as they are trampled and gnawed into pieces by the polis of their much-loved heathendom.
That anyone by the name of Christian could reasonably lament the legalisation of Christianity, and the influence of the Christian gospel in the political sphere solidly BAFFLES me. I wish for these asswipes nothing better than a speedy deportation to a land and a situation where no such graces are offered, that they may have neither my prayers nor my concern as they are trampled and gnawed into pieces by the polis of their much-loved heathendom.
Wittgenstein contradicts himself.
"Die Welt ist die Gesamtheit der Tatsachen, nicht der Dinge." (Tractatus 1.1)
So Wittgenstein insists that the world, rather than being a totality of things (der Dinge) is a totality of facts (der Tatsachen).
Very well then. So what exactly ARE facts, Mr. Wittgenstein? Ah, I see that you have defined them not a few lines later:
"Was der Fall ist, die Tatsache, ist das Bestehen von Sachverhalten." (2)
So facts and the case (der Fall) are synonyms, and both can be defined as states of affairs. And what, finally, is a state of affairs?
"Der Sachverhalt ist eine Verbindung von Gegenständen. (Sachen, Dingen.)" (2.01)
States of affairs are combinations of Dingen; things. Ding Ding!! We have an answer!!! Facts are nothing other than states of affairs, which are nothing other than things!! Taking Mr. Wittgenstein at his own word, we may express his primordial proposition thus:
"The world is the totality of things, not of things."
Well done sir. In building a whole philosophy on the importance of expressing language meaningfully and sensibly, you have made a buffoon of yourself on the first page.
So Wittgenstein insists that the world, rather than being a totality of things (der Dinge) is a totality of facts (der Tatsachen).
Very well then. So what exactly ARE facts, Mr. Wittgenstein? Ah, I see that you have defined them not a few lines later:
"Was der Fall ist, die Tatsache, ist das Bestehen von Sachverhalten." (2)
So facts and the case (der Fall) are synonyms, and both can be defined as states of affairs. And what, finally, is a state of affairs?
"Der Sachverhalt ist eine Verbindung von Gegenständen. (Sachen, Dingen.)" (2.01)
States of affairs are combinations of Dingen; things. Ding Ding!! We have an answer!!! Facts are nothing other than states of affairs, which are nothing other than things!! Taking Mr. Wittgenstein at his own word, we may express his primordial proposition thus:
"The world is the totality of things, not of things."
Well done sir. In building a whole philosophy on the importance of expressing language meaningfully and sensibly, you have made a buffoon of yourself on the first page.
Wittgenstein, I smack my head at you!
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world." -Tractatus Illogico-Pseudo-Philosophicus 5.6
Idealistic nonsense. Language is but one concrete category of concepts, which in turn are but vessels or tools of consciousness as it stands to attention to meet the world. It is perfectly conceivable to imagine a richly contoured world (as richly contoured as our own) with very minute sets of language and very minute inventories of logic. This we would call the world of mystery. Moments of such a world meet us scattered and uncollected throughout our regular day. How often do you attempt to gather the words or the concepts to describe what has revealed itself to you but are unable? Is the revelation, for all that, limited to your paltry set of words? How foolish! We understand that the word mystery collapses into the revelation of the world itself; it crumbles before the thing. As a mere example, take the unveiling of a stunning vista of mountains while a hiker rounds the corner of a forested gendarme. Not even Wordsworth, were he this hiker, would be able to do proper justice to what stands before him, though he would assuredly try. But this very readily bespeaks a transcendence of the world over language. It meets our language and then dashes it to pieces.
The pernicious behavior of Wittgenstein transcends anything language could capture.
Idealistic nonsense. Language is but one concrete category of concepts, which in turn are but vessels or tools of consciousness as it stands to attention to meet the world. It is perfectly conceivable to imagine a richly contoured world (as richly contoured as our own) with very minute sets of language and very minute inventories of logic. This we would call the world of mystery. Moments of such a world meet us scattered and uncollected throughout our regular day. How often do you attempt to gather the words or the concepts to describe what has revealed itself to you but are unable? Is the revelation, for all that, limited to your paltry set of words? How foolish! We understand that the word mystery collapses into the revelation of the world itself; it crumbles before the thing. As a mere example, take the unveiling of a stunning vista of mountains while a hiker rounds the corner of a forested gendarme. Not even Wordsworth, were he this hiker, would be able to do proper justice to what stands before him, though he would assuredly try. But this very readily bespeaks a transcendence of the world over language. It meets our language and then dashes it to pieces.
The pernicious behavior of Wittgenstein transcends anything language could capture.
Monday, June 17, 2013
The Gnostics were right on one count.
"ή σαρξ ουκ ωϕελει ουδέν·" -Jesus (Jn.6:63b)
The flesh really does avail nothing.
To be sure, a psychoanalyst might have a day in paradise showing all of the divers ways in which Gnostics really did think that the flesh profited something. Irenaeus records in his first book Against Heresies not a few examples of Gnostic sects laying down all sorts of rules by which one may go to town and back with his body. Obviously the point of these libertinisms was to demonstrate a complete freedom from the flesh; to show that all of its lusts and activities were equally vain and could no longer touch on the future of the soul. The point, however, is not always the thought. I bet you the Gnostic church had a lot of horny individuals who would have taken up this doctrine and said, "Helllss Yes!!!!" It is these who loved their bodies after all.
Anyways, inasmuch as Gnostics formally recognized the incomparable truth of what Jesus said here, they were a step ahead of the church, which has always clung ferociously to a sort of natural bodily goodness, seeing in sinful flesh a likeness of the Divine.
The flesh really does avail nothing.
To be sure, a psychoanalyst might have a day in paradise showing all of the divers ways in which Gnostics really did think that the flesh profited something. Irenaeus records in his first book Against Heresies not a few examples of Gnostic sects laying down all sorts of rules by which one may go to town and back with his body. Obviously the point of these libertinisms was to demonstrate a complete freedom from the flesh; to show that all of its lusts and activities were equally vain and could no longer touch on the future of the soul. The point, however, is not always the thought. I bet you the Gnostic church had a lot of horny individuals who would have taken up this doctrine and said, "Helllss Yes!!!!" It is these who loved their bodies after all.
Anyways, inasmuch as Gnostics formally recognized the incomparable truth of what Jesus said here, they were a step ahead of the church, which has always clung ferociously to a sort of natural bodily goodness, seeing in sinful flesh a likeness of the Divine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)