Christian humour
lynx
This is something that Rowland Croucher posted on another ng. I'm
wondering what christians think about this kind of humour- and
especially a Baptist Pastor posting such a thing. To my way of thinking
this sort of thing is sacrilegious, and inappropriate for a religious
leader to disseminate. I'm thinking along the lines of how that we
become desensitised to violence by seeing it repeatedly portrayed in
film. So similarly ridiculing what should be revered, has the effect of
causing ppl to lose respect. But since I've been posting on religious
ng's, I've had to broaden my understanding of what Christianity means in
today's society, so maybe it's ok. Interested in comments.
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand'
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Jesus Christ Superstar :-)
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:07:01 +1100
From: * irenic * <see...@website.com>
Newsgroups: aus.jokes,rec.humor,alt.humor,za.humour
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2533708392859522492
--
Shalom! Rowland Croucher
'It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
for sure that just ain't so' (Mark Twain)
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ - 18,500 articles/ 4000 humour
Jude Alexander
"lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:87Rih.11807$HU....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> This is something that Rowland Croucher posted on another ng. I'm
> wondering what christians think about this kind of humour- and especially
> a Baptist Pastor posting such a thing. To my way of thinking this sort of
> thing is sacrilegious, and inappropriate for a religious leader to
> disseminate. I'm thinking along the lines of how that we become
> desensitised to violence by seeing it repeatedly portrayed in film. So
> similarly ridiculing what should be revered, has the effect of causing ppl
> to lose respect. But since I've been posting on religious ng's, I've had
> to broaden my understanding of what Christianity means in today's society,
> so maybe it's ok. Interested in comments.
It isn't sacrilegious. What's wrong with humor? Why do you think that
posting humor was anti-religious in some way?
lynx
appropriate or not should be considered. How many comedians have got
themselves into strife for supposedly inappropriate humor- racist or
anti-semitic jokes for example, or making fun of certain classes of ppl,
such as the disabled. In just about everything there's the perception of
a line that shouldn't be crossed. You wouldn't make love to your wife in
a public park, although there's nothing wrong with having sex with your
wife. It's the circumstances that make the difference. And I think that
making fun of Jesus, who is supposedly the Son of God, is inappropriate
for the reason that it encourages ppl to become irreverent. It's making
that line that shouldn't be crossed less visible. But of course
some/many ppl believe that reverence of the Church and it's deities is
inappropriate anyway, and I don't want to make too much of this, but I
just think it's yet another example of a prevailing trend of our society
to keep pushing the boundaries. A century ago women bathed in public in
neck to knee dress. Now they can wear a string bikini. How far do we go?
What's next? Will being totally nude in public become acceptable? Look
at TV. What is shown these days could never have been shown decades ago.
'Big Brother' is approaching the boundaries of soft porn for example.
Are these good things? What is the advantage of all this? One things for
sure, we have produced generations that have no respect for others life
or property, the law, police, the teachers in our schools, parents, in
fact just about anything or anyone you care to mention- and we see this
manifest in all kinds of anti-social behaviour on a daily basis. In any
case, I don't think it's appropriate for a minister of the Church to be
posting stuff that makes fun of what's supposed to be holy. That's just
my personal view.
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Why didn't Noah swat those two mosquitoes?'
Mark T
> There's nothing wrong with humor. But like everything else, what's
> appropriate or not should be considered. How many comedians have got
> themselves into strife for supposedly inappropriate humor
Maybe we should ban songs about such comedians .... like this one ..... by
a Christian!
LENNY BRUCE - Bob Dylan
Lenny Bruce is dead but his ghost lives on and on
Never did get any Golden Globe award, never made it to Synanon.
He was an outlaw, that's for sure,
More of an outlaw than you ever were.
Lenny Bruce is gone but his spirit's livin' on and on.
Maybe he had some problems, maybe some things that he couldn't work
out
But he sure was funny and he sure told the truth and he knew what he
was talkin'
about. Never robbed any churches nor cut off any babies' heads,
He just took the folks in high places and he shined a light in their
beds.
He's on some other shore, he didn't wanna live anymore.
Lenny Bruce is dead but he didn't commit any crime
He just had the insight to rip off the lid before its time.
I rode with him in a taxi once, only for a mile and a half,
Seemed like it took a couple of months.
Lenny Bruce moved on and like the ones that killed him, gone.
They said that he was sick 'cause he didn't play by the rules
He just showed the wise men of his day to be nothing more than fools.
They stamped him and they labeled him like they do with pants and
shirts,
He fought a war on a battlefield where every victory hurts.
Lenny Bruce was bad, he was the brother that you never had.
Copyright © 1981 Special Rider Music
> You wouldn't make love to your wife in a public park
Why not?
Oh ... I forgot ... you're a wanker!
> A century ago women bathed in public in
> neck to knee dress. Now they can wear a string bikini. How far do we go?
> What's next?
Ban all artwork showing a naked Adam and Eve!!!!
The following extract comes from Vasari's "Lives of The Artists" (Translated
by George Bull, Penguin; Middlesex, England: 1965; p. 379)
*****************************
To return to the Last Judgement: Michelangelo had already finished more than
three~fourths of the work when Pope Paul went to see it. On this occasion
Biagio da Cesena, the master of ceremonies and a very high-minded person,
happened to be with the Pope in the chapel and was asked what he thought of
the painting. He answered that it was most disgraceful that in so sacred a
place there should have been depicted all those nude figures, exposing
themselves so shamefully, and that it was no work for a papal chapel but
rather for the public baths and taverns. Angered by this comment,
Michelangelo determined he would have his revenge; and as soon as Biagio had
left he drew his portrait frorn memory in the figure of Minos, shown with a
great serpent curled around his legs, among a heap of devils in hell; nor
for all his pleading with the Pope and Michelangelo could Biagio have the
figure removed, and it was left, to record the incident, as it is today.
****
> What is shown these days could never have been shown decades ago.
So? Morality changes .... just like slaves were acceptable in the Old
Testament AND in Jesus' time ... but not now. Should we return to the Bible
and have slaves? How much is your slave price? I'd like to buy you to
clean my toilets.
> 'Big Brother' is approaching the boundaries of soft porn for example.
How would you know if you haven't watched it?
I'm going to life drawing classes in 2007. Should these be banned? (Refer
to Michelangelo above)
> One things for sure, we have produced generations that have no respect
> for
> others life or property, the law, police, the teachers in our schools,
> parents, in
> fact just about anything or anyone you care to mention- and we see this
> manifest in all kinds of anti-social behaviour on a daily basis.
That is what EVEERY generation says. Urban legend.
Fundamentalists have NO sense of humour.
That's a pity because there is so much about thenm that is really funny. ;-)
lynx
> "lynx" wrote:
>
>> You wouldn't make love to your wife in a public park
>>
>
> Why not?
>
Normal sensible ppl understand about these things. You don't because
you're not normal or sensible.
> Oh ... I forgot ... you're a wanker!
>
>> What is shown these days could never have been shown decades ago.
>>
>
> So? Morality changes ....
licentiousness have historically failed.
>
>> One things for sure, we have produced generations that have no respect
>> for
>> others life or property, the law, police, the teachers in our schools,
>> parents, in
>> fact just about anything or anyone you care to mention- and we see this
>> manifest in all kinds of anti-social behaviour on a daily basis.
>>
>
>
I'm not the only one saying it, dickhead. There was media comment just
recently by some notable public figure (forget who) that we need to
start 'inputing' more 'positive' values into our society, and restore
such things as kindness, manners, morality, decency, etc, to stem the
tide of social decline that is evident today. You can say what you like.
Decades ago we didn't have the problems we have today- wanton vandalism,
drugs, teenage alcoholism, prolific crime, etc. In the paper just
yesterday.. chap was sitting in his car at the beach minding his own
business, and noticed this guy walking along scratching all the parked
cars. Got out to confront him, and was slashed with a knife. Just made
it to hospital before he bled to death. How many examples do you need?
And where does much of this shit come from? From the USA and Hollywood.
The yanks export their culture and low standards, and we suffer for it.
> Fundamentalists have NO sense of humour.
>
> That's a pity because there is so much about thenm that is really funny. ;-)
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Dinner not ready: (A)bort (R)etry (P)izza'
Mark T
>>> You wouldn't make love to your wife in a public park
>> Why not?
>
> The fact that you have to ask is very telling.
Is it?
My wife asked whether you are married. I told her you weren't. Her reply
was "That explains it!"
> What if everyone did it?
Most people don't have boring sex lives.
> Societies that go the way of sexual licentiousness have historically
> failed.
So are you going to live in a strict Moslem society?
There was no respect for youth when I was young, and now that I am old,
there is no respect for age - I missed it coming and going. ~J.B. Priestly
There is nothing wrong with today's teenager that twenty years won't cure.
~Author Unknown
lynx
> "lynx" wrote:
>
>>>> You wouldn't make love to your wife in a public park
>>>>
>>> Why not?
>>>
>> The fact that you have to ask is very telling.
>>
>
> Is it?
>
agree with you that having sex on open display in public is not beyond
the bounds of common decency- not to mention the law. But what can we
expect from someone as confused as yourself.
> My wife asked whether you are married. I told her you weren't. Her reply
> was "That explains it!"
>
>> What if everyone did it?
>>
>
> Most people don't have boring sex lives.
>
off and bonk your missus in the local McDonalds if you like- maybe after
the Big Mac, and before the McFries. It's no skin off my nose. Who
knows, maybe it'll help with digestion.
>> Societies that go the way of sexual licentiousness have historically
>> failed.
>>
>
> So are you going to live in a strict Moslem society?
>
middle ground?
> There was no respect for youth when I was young, and now that I am old,
> there is no respect for age - I missed it coming and going. ~J.B. Priestly
>
> There is nothing wrong with today's teenager that twenty years won't cure.
> ~Author Unknown
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'When in doubt empty the magazine'
* irenic *
"Mark T" <moi@0975576447676764508797644637857474> wrote in message
news:458c93ba$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
<>
> Most people don't have boring sex lives.
Sure about that? I'm happy you don't Mark (neither do I) but sex is not
simple/easy/satisfying for a large percentage of people...
--
Shalom! Rowland Croucher
'It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
for sure that just ain't so' (Mark Twain)
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ - 18,600 articles/ 4000 humour
* irenic *
> Jude Alexander wrote:
>
>> "lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>> news:87Rih.11807$HU....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>> This is something that Rowland Croucher posted on another ng. I'm
>>> wondering what christians think about this kind of humour- and
>>> especially a Baptist Pastor posting such a thing. To my way of thinking
>>> this sort of thing is sacrilegious, and inappropriate for a religious
>>> leader to disseminate. I'm thinking along the lines of how that we
>>> become desensitised to violence by seeing it repeatedly portrayed in
>>> film. So similarly ridiculing what should be revered, has the effect of
>>> causing ppl to lose respect. But since I've been posting on religious
>>> ng's, I've had to broaden my understanding of what Christianity means in
>>> today's society, so maybe it's ok. Interested in comments.
I posted that on to a few groups which were able to cope with it (in my
judgment) and refrained from sending it to others which couldn't...
Short response: Jesus would have laughed, but the frowners/Pharisees would
have tut-tutted...
>> It isn't sacrilegious. What's wrong with humor? Why do you think that
>> posting humor was anti-religious in some way?
--
Shalom! Rowland Croucher
'It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
for sure that just ain't so' (Mark Twain)
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ - 18,600 articles/ 4000 humour
lynx
> "lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:E9Zih.11913$HU....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>> Jude Alexander wrote:
>>
>>> "lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:87Rih.11807$HU....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>> This is something that Rowland Croucher posted on another ng. I'm
>>>> wondering what christians think about this kind of humour- and
>>>> especially a Baptist Pastor posting such a thing. To my way of thinking
>>>> this sort of thing is sacrilegious, and inappropriate for a religious
>>>> leader to disseminate. I'm thinking along the lines of how that we
>>>> become desensitised to violence by seeing it repeatedly portrayed in
>>>> film. So similarly ridiculing what should be revered, has the effect of
>>>> causing ppl to lose respect. But since I've been posting on religious
>>>> ng's, I've had to broaden my understanding of what Christianity means in
>>>> today's society, so maybe it's ok. Interested in comments.
>>>>
>
> I posted that on to a few groups which were able to cope with it (in my
> judgment) and refrained from sending it to others which couldn't...
>
do, just so long as those who wouldn't approve don't know about it?
> Short response: Jesus would have laughed, but the frowners/Pharisees would
> have tut-tutted...
>
Jesus didn't take too kindly to inappropriate behaviour- money lenders
in the temple for example.
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'If IBMs have bugs, do APPLEs have worms ?'
Eric Fisher
In any case, I don't think it's appropriate for a minister of the Church
to be posting stuff that makes fun of what's supposed to be holy. That's
just my personal view.
<><>>><>
i love humor, satire, etc., and to the point of being considered
inappropriate by some. but i think we have to work on being aware of
when, what, and how, to use it.
and i think we have to be aware of the need to not always take ourselves
overly seriously, but to avoid mocking or denigrating god, while we're
pokng at ourselves.
Eric Fisher
So the only alternatives are extremes, are they? What's wrong with the
middle ground?
<><>><><
c'mon, you know mark is waiting. it's public orgies or strict moslem
communes. hurry up and decide, youre running out of time.
Eric Fisher
You wouldn't make love to your wife in a public park
mark:
Why not?
<><>><>><>
now mark... you wouldn't wanna be taking your kid to the park and have
everyone exposing themselves to him/her would you? in fact, they
wouldn't want it either..... well.... unless they could be really
selective.... when i was a kid, there was this teacher..... oh....
sorry..... i trailed off there....
Eric Fisher
So does that mean it's ok for a Pastor to do things Pastors shouldn't
do, just so long as those who wouldn't approve don't know about it?
i've known a few pastors who operated on this principle. they usually
end up spending all their "study time" holed up with new "secretaries",
discussing messy divorces.
<><>>><>>><>
pete:
As I recall Jesus didn't take too kindly to inappropriate behaviour-
money lenders in the temple for example.
......
i seem to recall a scripture or two warning against "coarse jesting".
but then, who cares what the scriptures say? what's oprah's opinion on
this?
Chuck Stamford
> wondering what christians think about this kind of humour- and especially
> a Baptist Pastor posting such a thing. To my way of thinking this sort of
> thing is sacrilegious, and inappropriate for a religious leader to
> disseminate. I'm thinking along the lines of how that we become
> desensitised to violence by seeing it repeatedly portrayed in film. So
> similarly ridiculing what should be revered, has the effect of causing ppl
> to lose respect. But since I've been posting on religious ng's, I've had
> to broaden my understanding of what Christianity means in today's society,
> so maybe it's ok. Interested in comments.
You can mark me down for the "It's disgusting" column.
And as for Rowland, until someone shows me how a human being can both
ridicule and revere at the same time, he has no business being associated
with, let alone promoting a viewing audience for this sort of thing.
What's he going to endorse next? That "art" work that was funded, to my
everlasting shame as an American, by the National Acadamey of the Arts, and
consists in a cross soaking in urine? Yeah, this clip is "humor", and
that's "art". So be it. They're both attacks on the person, character, and
ministry of the Son of God, the Creator and Savior of the world...whatever
else anyone may want to call them.
Chuck Stamford
lynx
> "lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:87Rih.11807$HU....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>> This is something that Rowland Croucher posted on another ng. I'm
>> wondering what christians think about this kind of humour- and especially
>> a Baptist Pastor posting such a thing. To my way of thinking this sort of
>> thing is sacrilegious, and inappropriate for a religious leader to
>> disseminate. I'm thinking along the lines of how that we become
>> desensitised to violence by seeing it repeatedly portrayed in film. So
>> similarly ridiculing what should be revered, has the effect of causing ppl
>> to lose respect. But since I've been posting on religious ng's, I've had
>> to broaden my understanding of what Christianity means in today's society,
>> so maybe it's ok. Interested in comments.
>>
>
> You can mark me down for the "It's disgusting" column.
>
> And as for Rowland, until someone shows me how a human being can both
> ridicule and revere at the same time, he has no business being associated
> with, let alone promoting a viewing audience for this sort of thing.
>
> What's he going to endorse next? That "art" work that was funded, to my
> everlasting shame as an American, by the National Acadamey of the Arts, and
> consists in a cross soaking in urine?
> Yeah, this clip is "humor", and that's "art". So be it.
acceptable. A bit like insulting someone on usernet, and then adding a
smiley!
> They're both attacks on the person, character, and
> ministry of the Son of God, the Creator and Savior of the world...whatever
> else anyone may want to call them.
>
Rowland, Morkie, and Larry (the three stooges?) in the christian camp,
the atheists may as well pick up their bat and ball and go home.
> Chuck Stamford
>
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Access denied ... nah nah na nah nah!'
John McComb
> I posted that on to a few groups which were able to cope with it (in my
> judgment) and refrained from sending it to others which couldn't...
>
> Short response: Jesus would have laughed, but the frowners/Pharisees would
> have tut-tutted...
You know, I don't think he would have, since it was obviously
created with an intent to offend.
I think he would have wept for those who were unfortunate enough
to view it and be injured by it.
Yours in Christ
John
Mark T
> So does that mean it's ok for a Pastor to do things Pastors shouldn't do,
> just so long as those who wouldn't approve don't know about it?
What things should Pastors not do beside those that apply to everyone else?
Mark T
>> Most people don't have boring sex lives.
>
> Sure about that?
Are you claiming that most people have boring sex lives?
> I'm happy you don't Mark
So am I. ;-)
Mark T
>>>>> You wouldn't make love to your wife in a public park
>>>> Why not?
>>> The fact that you have to ask is very telling.
>> Is it?
> Yes it is. Do your own survey if you like and see how many ppl will agree
> with you that having sex on open display in public is not beyond the
> bounds of common decency- not to mention the law.
You didn't say "in public" - you said "in a public park". The two are
different. There are public parks with nice private areas and miles away
from anyone.
Why do think that sex out in the open is immoral?
>> My wife asked whether you are married. I told her you weren't. Her reply
>> was "That explains it!"
> That explains nothing.
It explains a lot. After sex with my wife for over 30 years there isn't
much we have not tried.
>>> What if everyone did it?
>> Most people don't have boring sex lives.
>
> Most ppl know that there's a time and place for everything.
... including sex outside.
Mark T
> Short response: Jesus would have laughed, but the frowners/Pharisees would
> have tut-tutted...
... and they are.
--
"We're Christians! We're not supposed to think!" Fanny Wype ("Nudist Colony
Of The Dead")
Mark T
>> Short response: Jesus would have laughed, but the frowners/Pharisees
>> would have tut-tutted...
>
> You know, I don't think he would have
Your Jesus is a boring old fart!
Maybe you need to update your version.
--
In our times, various ideologically dedicated groups increasingly use
censorship, coercion, or propaganda to limit access to ideas, literature,
and the arts that they consider threatening. p.74
Censorship, the twin brother of propaganda, is the tool of despots, of
ideologues, of ayatollahs, of fanatics. p.96
Franky Schaeffer [a Christian] "Sham Pearls For Real Swine" ( Wolgemuth &
Hyatt; Brentwood:1990)
Mark T
iteself) <shell__...@cox.net> wroteth:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subject: Jesus Christ Superstar :-)
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:07:01 +1100
From: * irenic * <see...@website.com>
Newsgroups: aus.jokes,rec.humor,alt.humor,za.humour
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2533708392859522492
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As Rowland said "Short response: Jesus would have laughed, but the
frowners/Pharisees would have tut-tutted"
... and so widdle Chucky tut-tutted .....
> You can mark me down for the "It's disgusting" column.
It got a 5 and a half star rating ...better than any fundamentalist sermoan.
It has Jesus in his underwear dancing out on a street to Gloria Gaynor's "I
Will Survive" before being hit by a bus.
As a Christian I think it's funny.
> What's he going to endorse next? That "art" work that was funded, to my
> everlasting shame as an American, by the National Acadamey of the Arts,
> and consists in a cross soaking in urine?
View "Piss Christ" by Andres Serrano A CHRISTIAN at
http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/502.html
The art critic and former Catholic nun Sister Wendy Beckett voiced her
approval of Piss Christ. She explained in a television interview with Bill
Moyers that she regarded the work as a statement on "what we have done to
Christ" - that is, the way contemporary society has come to regard Christ
and the values he represents.
Read an interview with the artist .....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shooting the Klan: An Interview with Andres Serrano
By Coco Fusco
Andres Serrano was an apparently unwilling soldier in the Culture Wars of
the early '90s. Here scholar and performance artist Coco Fusco asks him what
he intended to do when he made Piss Christ, what he thinks he's doing
photographing the Ku Klux Klan, and how things have changed for him as a
result of all the hoopla. -Eds.
It was Piss Christ, Andres Serrano's photograph of a crucifix immersed in
his own urine, together with Robert Mapplethorpe's homoerotic images, that
in 1989 set off the attack against art from the far Right. In a short period
of time, Serrano was transformed from a relatively successful but reclusive
New York artist and member of the collective Group Material into a
celebrity/pariah under perpetual public scrutiny.
He has received death threats and hate mail and has lost grants on the one
hand, and on the other has enjoyed dozens of laudatory articles and a
sizeable hike in his prices. Furthermore, the fuss caused by Christian
fundamentalists has hardly dimmed Serrano's fascination with religious
iconography. His apartment, nestled in a semi-industrial area near downtown
Brooklyn, is full of antique ecclesiastical furniture. It would give the
impression of a Mediterranean antechoir were there not also numerous skulls,
artworks and other unusual knick-knacks.
The combination of indirect approach to issues, cool conceptual technique
and emotionally charged focus on symbols that resonate outside the
vocabulary of the art world has been Serrano's trademark since he began to
produce mature work in the early '80s. In his first pieces, he concentrated
largely on reworking Catholic iconography in highly stylized tableaux. Later
he moved into more abstract images that also touched on social and religious
taboos, using bodily fluids such as milk, menstrual blood and semen. Piss
Christ emerged out of a transition between these periods and was originally
part of a series in which Serrano photographed several statues, which had
varied connotations, immersed in different fluids. Nonetheless, just as the
artist has come to stand for the biggest controversy to rock the art world
in the '80s, so has one photograph come to stand for his entire oeuvre.
Many other artists whose funding and freedom of expression were threatened
by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) controversy have since made
their "censorship" the subject of their work. Serrano, however, has avoided
focusing on the far Right's attacks as much as possible, and has ostensibly
ignored it in his recent work.
...
Coco Fusco: Your use of Catholic symbolism stands out in part because you
are operating in a predominantly Protestant context. An attraction to the
sensuality and the carnality that you bring out in your Catholic iconography
can develop, since Protestant symbolism looks rather pale by comparison. How
would it affect your work to be exhibited in a Catholic context?
Andres Serrano: I have always felt that my work is religious, not
sacrilegious. I would say that there are many individuals in the Church who
appreciate it and who do not have a problem with it. The best place for Piss
Christ is in a church. In fact, I recently had a show in Marseilles in an
actual church that also functions as an exhibition space, and the work
looked great there. I think if the Vatican is smart, someday they'll collect
my work.
CF: Does your interest in Catholicism have to do more with an attraction to
the iconography or is it about wanting to make a social or political comment
about what the Church represents?
AS: Look at my apartment. I am drawn to the symbols of the Church. I like
the aesthetics of the Church. I like Church furniture. I like going to
Church for aesthetic reasons, rather than spiritual ones. In my work, I
explore my own Catholic obsessions. An artist is nothing without his or her
obsessions, and I have mine. One of the things that always bothered me was
the fundamentalist labeling of my work as "anti-Christian bigotry." As a
former Catholic, and as someone who even today is not opposed to being
called a Christian, I felt I had every right to use the symbols of the
Church and resented being told not to.
CF: At the same time you have expressed concern about the Church's position
on many contemporary issues.
AS: I am drawn to Christ but I have real problems with the Catholic Church.
I don't go out of my way to be critical of the Church in my work, because I
think that I make icons worthy of the Church. Oftentimes we love the thing
we hate and vice versa. Unfortunately, the Church's position on most
contemporary issues makes it hard to take them seriously.
CF: So you do see yourself carrying on a tradition of religious art?
AS: Absolutely. I am not a heretic. I like to believe that rather than
destroy icons, I make new ones.
....
CF: Many of the performance artists whose work has been part of the NEA
censorship controversy have made art and activist interventions in response
to having lost grants. You have not. Your answer to having been taken up in
this controversy appears to be, at least in terms of your work, to ignore
it. In doing so, you diminish the importance of that judgment. Is this one
more indirect move of yours, one more way of stepping around the obvious?
AS: As far as I am concerned, I wasn't going to let Jesse Helms or any other
politician dictate what direction my work should take. If I didn't directly
respond to it, it was my way of ignoring them and continuing my own merry
way.
....
This interview originally appeared in High Performance magazine, Fall 1991.
Original CAN/API publication: September 2002
Mark T
> It's only because it's called that that ppl somehow think it has to be
> acceptable.
Fundamentalists have NO idea about ART!!!
Jesus Jingles are not art!
God Ads are not art!
lynx
> "lynx" wrote:
>
>>>>>> You wouldn't make love to your wife in a public park
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why not?
>>>>>
>>>> The fact that you have to ask is very telling.
>>>>
>>> Is it?
>>>
>> Yes it is. Do your own survey if you like and see how many ppl will agree
>> with you that having sex on open display in public is not beyond the
>> bounds of common decency- not to mention the law.
>>
>
> You didn't say "in public" - you said "in a public park".
> The two are
> different. There are public parks with nice private areas and miles away
> from anyone.
>
> Why do think that sex out in the open is immoral?
>
>>> My wife asked whether you are married. I told her you weren't. Her reply
>>> was "That explains it!"
>>>
>> That explains nothing.
>>
>
> It explains a lot. After sex with my wife for over 30 years there isn't
> much we have not tried.
>
>>>> What if everyone did it?
>>>>
>>> Most people don't have boring sex lives.
>>>
>> Most ppl know that there's a time and place for everything.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'I don't have a solution but I admire the problem'
lynx
> "* irenic *" wrote:
>
>> Short response: Jesus would have laughed, but the frowners/Pharisees would
>> have tut-tutted...
>>
>
>
>
So who's right an who's wrong? Even normal decent ppl would think it's
wrong.
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Why should I grow up? This is more fun!'
lynx
would not make sense. Pastors should not commit crimes for example. But
assuming you mean what is off limits for Pastors that wouldn't be for
other chistians, my response is that Pastors are called to a higher duty
of care, since they are supposed to be guiding and teaching others.
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Whatever you delete today, you desperately need tomorrow'
lynx
> "Widdle Chucky Stamford" (fundamentalist Christian ... a joke within
> iteself) <shell__...@cox.net> wroteth:
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Subject: Jesus Christ Superstar :-)
> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:07:01 +1100
> From: * irenic * <see...@website.com>
> Newsgroups: aus.jokes,rec.humor,alt.humor,za.humour
> http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2533708392859522492
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> As Rowland said "Short response: Jesus would have laughed, but the
> frowners/Pharisees would have tut-tutted"
>
>
>> You can mark me down for the "It's disgusting" column.
>>
>
>
> It got a 5 and a half star rating ...better than any fundamentalist sermoan.
>
> It has Jesus in his underwear dancing out on a street to Gloria Gaynor's "I
> Will Survive" before being hit by a bus.
>
> As a Christian I think it's funny.
>
>
>> What's he going to endorse next? That "art" work that was funded, to my
>> everlasting shame as an American, by the National Acadamey of the Arts,
>> and consists in a cross soaking in urine?
>>
>
>
> View "Piss Christ" by Andres Serrano A CHRISTIAN at
> http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/502.html
>
> The art critic and former Catholic nun Sister Wendy Beckett voiced her
> approval of Piss Christ. She explained in a television interview with Bill
> Moyers that she regarded the work as a statement on "what we have done to
> Christ" - that is, the way contemporary society has come to regard Christ
> and the values he represents.
>
some artist who paints with poo, and that's supposed to be art. Just
shows how off the rails some ppl are.
> Read an interview with the artist .....
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> Shooting the Klan: An Interview with Andres Serrano
> By Coco Fusco
> Andres Serrano was an apparently unwilling soldier in the Culture Wars of
> the early '90s. Here scholar and performance artist Coco Fusco asks him what
> he intended to do when he made Piss Christ, what he thinks he's doing
> photographing the Ku Klux Klan, and how things have changed for him as a
> result of all the hoopla. -Eds.
>
> It was Piss Christ, Andres Serrano's photograph of a crucifix immersed in
> his own urine, together with Robert Mapplethorpe's homoerotic images, that
> in 1989 set off the attack against art from the far Right. In a short period
> of time, Serrano was transformed from a relatively successful but reclusive
> New York artist and member of the collective Group Material into a
> celebrity/pariah under perpetual public scrutiny.
>
> He has received death threats and hate mail and has lost grants on the one
> hand, and on the other has enjoyed dozens of laudatory articles and a
> sizeable hike in his prices.
> Furthermore, the fuss caused by Christian
> fundamentalists has hardly dimmed Serrano's fascination with religious
> iconography. His apartment, nestled in a semi-industrial area near downtown
> Brooklyn, is full of antique ecclesiastical furniture. It would give the
> impression of a Mediterranean antechoir were there not also numerous skulls,
> artworks and other unusual knick-knacks.
>
> The combination of indirect approach to issues, cool conceptual technique
> and emotionally charged focus on symbols that resonate outside the
> vocabulary of the art world has been Serrano's trademark since he began to
> produce mature work in the early '80s. In his first pieces, he concentrated
> largely on reworking Catholic iconography in highly stylized tableaux. Later
> he moved into more abstract images that also touched on social and religious
> taboos, using bodily fluids such as milk, menstrual blood and semen.
> Piss
> Christ emerged out of a transition between these periods and was originally
> part of a series in which Serrano photographed several statues, which had
> varied connotations, immersed in different fluids. Nonetheless, just as the
> artist has come to stand for the biggest controversy to rock the art world
> in the '80s, so has one photograph come to stand for his entire oeuvre.
>
> Many other artists whose funding and freedom of expression were threatened
> by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) controversy have since made
> their "censorship" the subject of their work. Serrano, however, has avoided
> focusing on the far Right's attacks as much as possible, and has ostensibly
> ignored it in his recent work.
>
>
> Coco Fusco: Your use of Catholic symbolism stands out in part because you
> are operating in a predominantly Protestant context. An attraction to the
> sensuality and the carnality that you bring out in your Catholic iconography
> can develop, since Protestant symbolism looks rather pale by comparison. How
> would it affect your work to be exhibited in a Catholic context?
>
> Andres Serrano: I have always felt that my work is religious, not
> sacrilegious. I would say that there are many individuals in the Church who
> appreciate it and who do not have a problem with it.
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'My Karma just ran over your Dogma'
John McComb
>> It explains a lot. After sex with my wife for over 30 years there
>> isn't much we have not tried.
>
> Having seen a photo of your wife, I don't envy you in the least.
>
Now 'that' was a low blow and, in my opinion, entirely uncalled
for.
I admit it was funny and, I am ashamed to say, I laughed at it.
However I probably could have survived through the rest of the
week without that chuckle.
Yours in Christ
John
lynx
> lynx wrote:
>
>>> It explains a lot. After sex with my wife for over 30 years there
>>> isn't much we have not tried.
>>
>> Having seen a photo of your wife, I don't envy you in the least.
>>
>
> Now 'that' was a low blow and, in my opinion, entirely uncalled for.
how often, over the years. No ones forcing him to boast about his sex
life in public. If he wants to dish it out, he needs to take it as well.
And you'll see far worse on other ngs. (try atheist ones)
>
> I admit it was funny and, I am ashamed to say, I laughed at it.
> However I probably could have survived through the rest of the
> week without that chuckle.
Croucher is the champion in that regard.
>
> Yours in Christ
>
> John
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'I used to be forgetful and indecisive. (Think I was. Don't remember when. Maybe not.)'
Jude_ Alexander
> Jude Alexander wrote:
>
>> "lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>> news:87Rih.11807$HU....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>> This is something that Rowland Croucher posted on another ng. I'm
>>> wondering what christians think about this kind of humour- and
>>> especially a Baptist Pastor posting such a thing. To my way of thinking
>>> this sort of thing is sacrilegious, and inappropriate for a religious
>>> leader to disseminate. I'm thinking along the lines of how that we
>>> become desensitised to violence by seeing it repeatedly portrayed in
>>> film. So similarly ridiculing what should be revered, has the effect of
>>> causing ppl to lose respect. But since I've been posting on religious
>>> ng's, I've had to broaden my understanding of what Christianity means in
>>> today's society, so maybe it's ok. Interested in comments.
>>>
>>
>> posting humor was anti-religious in some way?
>>
>>
>
> appropriate or not should be considered. How many comedians have got
> themselves into strife for supposedly inappropriate humor- racist or
> anti-semitic jokes for example, or making fun of certain classes of ppl,
> such as the disabled. In just about everything there's the perception of a
> line that shouldn't be crossed. You wouldn't make love to your wife in a
> public park, although there's nothing wrong with having sex with your
> wife. It's the circumstances that make the difference. And I think that
> making fun of Jesus, who is supposedly the Son of God, is inappropriate
> for the reason that it encourages ppl to become irreverent. It's making
> that line that shouldn't be crossed less visible. But of course some/many
> ppl believe that reverence of the Church and it's deities is inappropriate
> anyway, and I don't want to make too much of this, but I just think it's
> yet another example of a prevailing trend of our society to keep pushing
> the boundaries. A century ago women bathed in public in neck to knee
> dress. Now they can wear a string bikini. How far do we go? What's next?
> Will being totally nude in public become acceptable? Look at TV. What is
> shown these days could never have been shown decades ago. 'Big Brother' is
> approaching the boundaries of soft porn for example. Are these good
> things? What is the advantage of all this? One things for sure, we have
> produced generations that have no respect for others life or property, the
> law, police, the teachers in our schools, parents, in fact just about
> anything or anyone you care to mention- and we see this manifest in all
> kinds of anti-social behaviour on a daily basis. In any case, I don't
> that makes fun of what's supposed to be holy. That's just my personal
> view.
I agree that many of the youngest generation today has little shame. The
generation of WWI has too much shame. It's difficult to find
moderation/balance.
I don't believe Rowland is trying to mock God or Jesus. I just think that
he thinks there is little humor within Christian circles. Also, I don't
think Rowland is a Fundamentalist and obviously doesn't appear to be full of
sex angst.
John McComb
> So what. How many ppl has he offended, insulted, abused, denigrated, and
> how often, over the years.
I have no idea. I never kept a tally.
> No ones forcing him to boast about his sex
> life in public. If he wants to dish it out, he needs to take it as well.
> And you'll see far worse on other ngs. (try atheist ones)
Well, the dishing out injures the disher far more than it injures
the dishee. Tindall does a very thorough job of damaging himself all
by his lonesome. I don't think he needs any assistance.
Yours in Christ
John
Eric Fisher
View "Piss Christ" by Andres Serrano A CHRISTIAN at.....
<><>><>><>
honest question. how do you decide to refer to someone as a christian?
Eric Fisher
.. the atheists may as well pick up their bat and ball and go home.
<><><><
you know... they say the best way to bring down a group is to
infiltrate......
i cannot understand how some of the folks here, who do nothng but mock
everythng remotely christian, would want to say they are christians, but
some of them still do.
Jude_ Alexander
"Eric Fisher" <ericf...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:523-458D...@storefull-3218.bay.webtv.net...
You nor I or anybody don't get to say who belongs to God. We not able to
judge one another on that issue. I sometimes think that its' impossible for
"so and so" to truly belong but than I remember that I haven't a clue and we
ALL meet up with other people at every developmental part of the journey and
therefore it IS truly impossible to tell.
(: Lawrence Meckan :)
> Mark T wrote:
>
>> "lynx" wrote:
>>
>>> So does that mean it's ok for a Pastor to do things Pastors shouldn't
>>> do, just so long as those who wouldn't approve don't know about it?
>>>
>>
>> What things should Pastors not do beside those that apply to everyone
>> else?
>>
>>
>
> I assume your mean everyone else christian. Otherwise your question
> would not make sense. Pastors should not commit crimes for example.
Neither should the rest of society..
Which makes "pastors" no different than the rest of society.. This means
the whole "do not touch the Lord's anointed" / "as for me and my house,
we will follow the Lord" trawled out by conservatives / fundamentalists
and those pastors with serious issue of pride, integrity and ethics is
just a stalling of the inevitable fall *when* those pastors do commit
crimes.
> But assuming you mean what is off limits for Pastors that wouldn't be for
> other chistians, my response is that Pastors are called to a higher duty
> of care, since they are supposed to be guiding and teaching others.
They are called. They don't always meet the mark, due to the false
expectation that people such as Pete put on them as being some form of
"holy men".. Pastors even do it to other pastors (e.g. Athan and his
veneration of his Pope). The culture surrounding pastors and clergy
isn't exactly engendering openness and transparency for issues that
pastors and clergy need to deal with in order for *their faith* to mature.
It would be wiser to reform the culture than to have yet more pastors
burn out / fall from grace due to the false expectations present within
their current cultre.
lawrence
MEHSC Moberator
> I don't envy you in the least.
How's your relationship with your hand going?
MEHSC Moberator
>>>> So does that mean it's ok for a Pastor to do things Pastors shouldn't
>>>> do, just so long as those who wouldn't approve don't know about it?
>>> What things should Pastors not do beside those that apply to everyone
>>> else?
>>
>> I assume your mean everyone else christian. Otherwise your question
>> would not make sense. Pastors should not commit crimes for example.
>
> Neither should the rest of society..
>
> Which makes "pastors" no different than the rest of society.. This means
> the whole "do not touch the Lord's anointed" / "as for me and my house,
> we will follow the Lord" trawled out by conservatives / fundamentalists
> and those pastors with serious issue of pride, integrity and ethics is
> just a stalling of the inevitable fall *when* those pastors do commit
> crimes.
... which is what I was hinting at.
MEHSC Moberator
>> http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2533708392859522492
....
>> It got a 5 and a half star rating ...better than any fundamentalist
>> sermoan.
>>
>
> Porno sites get millions of hits.
So how many times have you and your hand visited them and contributed to the
hits?
>>> What's he going to endorse next? That "art" work that was funded, to my
>>> everlasting shame as an American, by the National Acadamey of the Arts,
>>> and consists in a cross soaking in urine?
>>
>> View "Piss Christ" by Andres Serrano A CHRISTIAN at
...
> You can explain anything anyway you want. Doesn't make it right. There's
> some artist who paints with poo, and that's supposed to be art. Just shows
> how off the rails some ppl are.
Yes, some Philistines never understand art.
> Yes, that's what it's really all about- being noticed, fame and money.
Most artists make very little money.
Mark T
> i cannot understand how some of the folks here, who do nothng but mock
> everythng remotely christian, would want to say they are christians, but
> some of them still do.
Fundamentalists are so easy to mock.
"Making fun of born-again christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high
powered rifle and scope." -[P.J. O'Rourke]
He is correct!
Why?
Read his "Holidays In Hell" (Morgan Entrekin; New York:1988) for a
description of Jim and Tammy Bakker's Heritage USA ! pp. 91 - 95
#######################################
.... Dorothy and I came to scoff - but went away converted.
Unfortunately we were converted to Satanism. Now we're up half he night
going to witch's sabbaths and have to spend our free time reciting the
Lord's Prayer backward and scouring the neighbourhood for black dogs to
sacrifice. Frankly, it's a nuisance, but if it keeps us from going to the
Heritage USA part of heaven, it will be worth it.
...We walked into the hotel lobby, carollers were singing:
"You'd better not frown,
You'd better not cry,
You'd better not pout,
I'm telling you why,
Jesus Christ is coming real soon."
And I thought Heritage USA was going to be dumb. But I'd only been there 15
minutes and I was already confronted by enough serious theological questions
to send St Thomas Aquinas back to Bible College. Did Santa die on the cross?
Will he be resurrected at Macy's? Were the disciples really elves? When the
second coming happens, will Jesus bring toy trains? While I puzzled over
these mysteries Dorothy went shopping.
... there on the shelves ...a born-again diet plan, a transcription of the
horrible (though rather unimaginative) things you can hear if you play rock
records backward, and a weighty tome arguing that every time the New
Testament says "wine" it really means "grape juice." But I couldn't find
anything you'd actually call a book. ....
Then we went into the music store. ...No album was actually entitled 'I
Found God And Lost My Talent', but I'm quite sure that was an oversight.
...The toy store was weirder yet. The stuffed toys had names like "Born
Again Bunny" and "Devotion Duck". A child-size panoply of biblical weapons
was for sale, including a "shield of righteousness," a "helmet of faith,"
and a sword of truth" that looked ideal for a "clobber of little sister."
And there were Biblical action figures - Goliath with a bashed skull, Samson
and Delilah as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver. "Comes seductively
dressed" read the sell copy on Delilah's bubble pack. Here was a shopper's
hell indeed.
...I didn't have the heart to make fun of these folks. ....
##############################
...and then comes that first quote ...
"Making fun of born-again christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high
powered rifle and scope." -[P.J. O'Rourke]
The sad thing is that much of the church HAS NOT CHANGED since the "glory
days " of Heritage USA. Look at most of the Christian Bookstores. The
spitting image of Heritage USA!
P J O'Rourke adds "I've always figured that if God wanted us to go to church
a lot He'd have given us bigger behinds to sit on and smaller heads to think
with."
Mark T
> View "Piss Christ" by Andres Serrano A CHRISTIAN at.....
> <><>><>><>
>
> honest question. how do you decide to refer to someone as a christian?
The interview with the artist .....
Eric Fisher
You nor I or anybody don't get to say who belongs to God...
<><><><>
you know, i think i'm gonna go back to only reading till you say
something stupid, that'll cut way down on my time wasted. so if you want
something to be read by me, i suggest you save the lying insinuations,
vulgarity, name calling, etc. till later on in the post. then, if it
makes you feel good... have at it.
case in point above.... what you posted would be relevant if i had said
anything about somebody belonging or not belonging to god, but no, you
just pretend i did, so you can try to rally the troops of those who feel
outcast around you.
reminds me of the tactics of the stereotypical "homosexual recruiter".
hmmm.....
anyway, it was obvious.... what i actually posted was questioning why
anyone would want to be labelling themselves as the very thing they seem
to despise. i don't get the answer... apparently you don't even get the
question. now, what was that i.q.? lol
Eric Fisher
"Eric Fisher" wrote:
honest question. how do you decide to refer to someone as a christian?
(Mark T) responds:
The interview with the artist .....
" As a former Catholic, and as someone who even today is not opposed to
being
called a Christian, I felt I had every right to use the symbols of the
Church and resented being told not to."
<><>>><><><>
come on mark. i am sorry, but that's lame. you referred to him as a
christian, and i asked the question above, and this is your answer?
you said he's a christian because you found a quote where he's talking
about himself in third person "as someone who even today is not opposed
to being called a Christian"?
you say someone's a christian if they are "not opposed to being called a
Christian"? what the heck is that?
i don't care what folks call me at all, but that doesn't mean anyone is
correct in just calling me whatever thing they draw out of a hat. and it
cetainly has nothing to do with reality to pretend you can truthully say
i am whatever that is, just because i'm not opposed to you calling me
that.
in case you missed it, your answer has just rendered your calling
yourself, or anyone else "a christian" irrelevent.
bob young
lynx wrote:
>
> This is something that Rowland Croucher posted on another ng. I'm
> wondering what christians think about this kind of humour- and
> especially a Baptist Pastor posting such a thing. To my way of thinking
> this sort of thing is sacrilegious, and inappropriate for a religious
> leader to disseminate. I'm thinking along the lines of how that we
> become desensitised to violence by seeing it repeatedly portrayed in
> film. So similarly ridiculing what should be revered, has the effect of
> causing ppl to lose respect. But since I've been posting on religious
> ng's, I've had to broaden my understanding of what Christianity means in
> today's society, so maybe it's ok. Interested in comments.
Well revering something that cannot be proven, seen or touched is tantamount to
insanity.
Humour reflects life as it really is, with substance and truth
something no religion has yet been able to do.
bob
Humanist Brit.
hong kong
Moving on to relics, we've got shrouds, from Turin; wine from the
wedding at Cana, splinters from the true Cross Ι..then of course,
there's all the stuff made by Jesus in his days in the carpentry shop.
Pipe racks, coffee tables, cake stands, bookends, crucifixes, nice
cheeseboard, waterproof sandals fruit bowls..
[dialogue,'The Archbishop', BlackAdder.]
>
>
> --
>
> rgds,
>
> Pete
> =====
> http://pw352.blogspot.com/
> 'Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand'
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Jesus Christ Superstar :-)
> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:07:01 +1100
> From: * irenic * <see...@website.com>
> Newsgroups: aus.jokes,rec.humor,alt.humor,za.humour
>
> http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2533708392859522492
>
> --
>
> Shalom! Rowland Croucher
>
> 'It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
> for sure that just ain't so' (Mark Twain)
>
> http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ - 18,500 articles/ 4000 humour
Len B
"Chuck Stamford" <shell__...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:F_1jh.96$0D2...@newsfe15.phx...
>
> "lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:87Rih.11807$HU....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> wondering what christians think about this kind of humour- and especially
>> a Baptist Pastor posting such a thing. To my way of thinking this sort of
>> thing is sacrilegious, and inappropriate for a religious leader to
>> disseminate. I'm thinking along the lines of how that we become
>> desensitised to violence by seeing it repeatedly portrayed in film. So
>> similarly ridiculing what should be revered, has the effect of causing
>> ppl to lose respect. But since I've been posting on religious ng's, I've
>> had to broaden my understanding of what Christianity means in today's
>> society, so maybe it's ok. Interested in comments.
>
>
> ridicule and revere at the same time, he has no business being associated
> with, let alone promoting a viewing audience for this sort of thing.
>
> What's he going to endorse next? That "art" work that was funded, to my
> everlasting shame as an American, by the National Acadamey of the Arts,
> that's "art". So be it. They're both attacks on the person, character,
> and ministry of the Son of God, the Creator and Savior of the
> world...whatever else anyone may want to call them.
>
> Chuck Stamford
Well said Chuck! Put me down for the "I'tsdisgusting" column too. I did not
even see a bus. I stopped it about half-way through. We are told that in the
last days mockers will come. Some even wear a name badge that says Pastor.
"Pastor" is not a word on a name badge. It is a life lived. A life that
ridicules while pretending to revere does not qualify. Using what the world
thinks is funny as a yardstick is no excuse. Mockery is mockery! This
natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are
foolishness to him; and he is unable to discern them because they are
spirityally appraised. Instead he accepts the things of the world and the
standards of the world. If he ever had the truth of God, he has exchanged it
for a lie. Unfortunately he is not alone. There are many wolves in
shepherd's clothing.
http://tvo1.blogspot.com/2006/10/leave-or-turn-back.html
We only have to look at some of the posts on this thread to see the result
of this sort of leadership. People claiming to be christian speaking like
the world speaks. Is the Lord pleased? Pete, don't broaden your standards.
The Lord didn't! Check out Mark 7 v8. Don't allow yourself to be
desensitized. Be strong.
-- Len
lynx
> even see a bus. I stopped it about half-way through. We are told that in the
> last days mockers will come. Some even wear a name badge that says Pastor.
>
> "Pastor" is not a word on a name badge. It is a life lived. A life that
> ridicules while pretending to revere does not qualify. Using what the world
> thinks is funny as a yardstick is no excuse. Mockery is mockery! This
> natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are
> foolishness to him; and he is unable to discern them because they are
> standards of the world. If he ever had the truth of God, he has exchanged it
> for a lie. Unfortunately he is not alone. There are many wolves in
> shepherd's clothing.
>
> http://tvo1.blogspot.com/2006/10/leave-or-turn-back.html
>
> We only have to look at some of the posts on this thread to see the result
> of this sort of leadership. People claiming to be christian speaking like
> the world speaks. Is the Lord pleased? Pete, don't broaden your standards.
> The Lord didn't! Check out Mark 7 v8. Don't allow yourself to be
> desensitized. Be strong.
>
> -- Len
>
>
>
like, but I think it's disgusting to portray Jesus in that way. And I
think it's particularly reprehensible for a Pastor to be posting such
stuff. I have virtually no faith in or respect for anyone calling
themselves a Pastor these days. I was a bit reserved in my initial
comment, as I wanted to first see if others saw things my way or not. I
knew there would be those who didn't see a problem with it, and would
think it was silly to find it offensive.
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Work: the curse of the drinking class'
Jude Alexander
"(: Lawrence Meckan :)" <lme...@SMEEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:458dad01$0$13938$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Well said. All people have feet of clay. We shouldn't give "holy man"
status to pastors/ministers/etc.. I don't get this generally typical "need"
for people to have heros.
Jude Alexander
(Jude_ Alexander) :
You nor I or anybody don't get to say who belongs to God...
<><><><>
you know, i think i'm gonna go back to only reading till you say
something stupid,
You nor I or anybody else get's to say who belongs to God. We don't have
the power or the ability to know a person's whole life, all the facts of
yesterday, today and tomorrow. You can come across a person on any part of
his path and claim you know where they're headed and that they couldn't
possibly belong to God. That would be an error on your part.
If you feel comfortable judging what you cannot, then feel free but THAT is
what really is stupid, Eric. It seems you would be developed enough to
understand this.
Stupid is as stupid does.--- Forest Gump
lynx
>
>
> Well said. All people have feet of clay. We shouldn't give "holy man"
> status to pastors/ministers/etc.. I don't get this generally typical "need"
> for people to have heros.
>
>
>
by God' then. A Pastor/Priest/Minister has no more 'authority' than
anyone else to teach, counsel. etc., in the christian faith? By that
view it would be impossible to have any Church structure, save for
administrative purposes.
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'If you can't do it well, learn to enjoy doing it badly'
lynx
> lynx wrote:
>
>> Mark T wrote:
>>
>>> "lynx" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> So does that mean it's ok for a Pastor to do things Pastors shouldn't
>>>> do, just so long as those who wouldn't approve don't know about it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What things should Pastors not do beside those that apply to everyone
>>> else?
>>>
>>>
>> I assume your mean everyone else christian. Otherwise your question
>> would not make sense. Pastors should not commit crimes for example.
>>
>
> Neither should the rest of society.
>
> Which makes "pastors" no different than the rest of society.
neither should commit crimes?
>
>> But assuming you mean what is off limits for Pastors that wouldn't be for
>> other chistians, my response is that Pastors are called to a higher duty
>> of care, since they are supposed to be guiding and teaching others.
>>
>
> They are called. They don't always meet the mark,
those who he thought could 'handle it'. So what he said in effect is
that it's ok for our actions to be determined by the morality of those
who are to be the beneficiaries of them, rather than our own. The
application of such philosophy would mean that it's ok to distribute
child pornography, as long as it was only sent it to those who were
'into' child pornography and could 'handle it'. Or that it's ok to be a
drug dealer, just so long as you only sold drugs to those who could
'handle' them.
>
> lawrence
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Why does an alarm clock go "off" when it actually turns on?'
(: Lawrence Meckan :)
> Jude Alexander wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Well said. All people have feet of clay. We shouldn't give "holy
>> man" status to pastors/ministers/etc.. I don't get this generally
>> typical "need" for people to have heros.
>>
>>
>
> So you don't subscribe to the idea that Pastors/ministers are 'ordained
> by God' then. A Pastor/Priest/Minister has no more 'authority' than
> anyone else to teach, counsel. etc., in the christian faith? By that
> view it would be impossible to have any Church structure, save for
> administrative purposes.
Even within the history of the Church, they are *not* ordained by God.
The ECF archives shows them being ordained by the Holy Spirit, the
clergy *and* the laity..which then begs more of a community-based focus
on ministry, rather than a "holy man" / "don't touch the Lord's
anointed" mentality.
The only reason there *is* Church structure is for administrative
purposes. Senominationalism spawned out of that administrative
institutionalisation of what the Church was meant to be about.
lawrence
(: Lawrence Meckan :)
> (: Lawrence Meckan :) wrote:
>
>
> Merry Christmas Lawrence..
Merry Christmas to you as well.
>> lynx wrote:
>>
>>> Mark T wrote:
>>>
>>>> "lynx" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> So does that mean it's ok for a Pastor to do things Pastors shouldn't
>>>>> do, just so long as those who wouldn't approve don't know about it?
>>>>>
>>>> What things should Pastors not do beside those that apply to everyone
>>>> else?
>>>>
>>> I assume your mean everyone else christian. Otherwise your question
>>> would not make sense. Pastors should not commit crimes for example.
>>
>> Neither should the rest of society.
>>
>
> That goes without saying.
>
>> Which makes "pastors" no different than the rest of society.
>
> False logic. Is a doctor no different to a construction worker since
> neither should commit crimes?
In this case, there is no difference.
Regardless of what role a person plays in society, they shouldn't commit
crimes. Yet pastors, due to the cultural baggage surrounding
"ecclesiology" aka the administration of Church "business", their own
culture tend to place false expectations on them (notwithstanding the
expectations someone like you places on a pastor/priest either).
So there is a culture of silence inside ecclesiology to deal with issues
and crimes. Which is why you have stuff like Ted Haggard, the Greek
Orthodox property scandals in Greece, the Russian Orthodox murdering
people in their monasteries due to a lack of understanding of mental
health. Which is also why Greg tends to run away from anything than even
questions his intellectual integrity in how he sees those around him
(e.g. his Pope, St Athanasius).
I prefer my leaders to be honest, instead of having to hide their
shortcomings.
>>
>>> But assuming you mean what is off limits for Pastors that wouldn't be
>>> for
>>> other chistians, my response is that Pastors are called to a higher duty
>>> of care, since they are supposed to be guiding and teaching others.
>>>
>>
>> They are called. They don't always meet the mark,
>
> Rowland's response to my query was that he distributed the video to
> those who he thought could 'handle it'. So what he said in effect is
> that it's ok for our actions to be determined by the morality of those
> who are to be the beneficiaries of them, rather than our own. The
> application of such philosophy would mean that it's ok to distribute
> child pornography, as long as it was only sent it to those who were
> 'into' child pornography and could 'handle it'. Or that it's ok to be a
> drug dealer, just so long as you only sold drugs to those who could
> 'handle' them.
Ah, yes.. the slippery slope defence (Jesus to child porn and drugs in
one foul swoop).
I do believe you've misunderstood. "Handle it" has nothing to do with
morality, but with maturity.
"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I
reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind
me." 1 Cor 13:11
lawrence
lynx
>
>> Rowland's response to my query was that he distributed the video to
>> those who he thought could 'handle it'. So what he said in effect is
>> that it's ok for our actions to be determined by the morality of those
>> who are to be the beneficiaries of them, rather than our own. The
>> application of such philosophy would mean that it's ok to distribute
>> child pornography, as long as it was only sent it to those who were
>> 'into' child pornography and could 'handle it'. Or that it's ok to be a
>> drug dealer, just so long as you only sold drugs to those who could
>> 'handle' them.
>>
>
> Ah, yes.. the slippery slope defence (Jesus to child porn and drugs in
> one foul swoop).
>
> I do believe you've misunderstood. "Handle it" has nothing to do with
> morality, but with maturity.
>
Sorry, but I don't buy it.
A Christian Pastor is publicly distributing a video ridiculing the
Christ he supposedly worships, and one that would give offence to all
decent christians, and even non-christians who would deem it
inappropriate, and you see no fault with that. Why am I not surprised.
> "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I
> reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind
> me." 1 Cor 13:11
>
> lawrence
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'If you have x-ray vision, and you can see through anything,
wouldn't you see through everything and actually see nothing?'
(: Lawrence Meckan :)
> (: Lawrence Meckan :) wrote:
>
>> lynx wrote:
>>
>>> Rowland's response to my query was that he distributed the video to
>>> those who he thought could 'handle it'. So what he said in effect is
>>> that it's ok for our actions to be determined by the morality of those
>>> who are to be the beneficiaries of them, rather than our own. The
>>> application of such philosophy would mean that it's ok to distribute
>>> child pornography, as long as it was only sent it to those who were
>>> 'into' child pornography and could 'handle it'. Or that it's ok to be a
>>> drug dealer, just so long as you only sold drugs to those who could
>>> 'handle' them.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, yes.. the slippery slope defence (Jesus to child porn and drugs in
>> one foul swoop).
>>
>> I do believe you've misunderstood. "Handle it" has nothing to do with
>> morality, but with maturity.
>>
>
> Oh ok.. so when you're spiritually mature, it's ok to ridicule Jesus.
> Sorry, but I don't buy it.
Still not there yet..
> A Christian Pastor is publicly distributing a video ridiculing the
> Christ he supposedly worships, and one that would give offence to all
> decent christians, and even non-christians who would deem it
> inappropriate, and you see no fault with that. Why am I not surprised.
It's the idol meat saga all over again..
And it's those who are so puritanical and ascetic that they can't see
that meat is beneficial.. so they're still drinking milk from the breast.
>> "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I
>> reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind
>> me." 1 Cor 13:11
>>
>
> And when you're 'spiritually mature' you babble like Lawrence! :)
"Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess
knowledge.[a] Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 2The man who
thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. 3But
the man who loves God is known by God.
4So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol
is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5For
even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as
indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6yet for us there is but
one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and
there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and
through whom we live.
7But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to
idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been
sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is
defiled. 8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we
do not eat, and no better if we do."
1 Cor 8:1-8..
"babble" = quoting Scripture ?
lawrence
lynx
> lynx wrote:
>
>> (: Lawrence Meckan :) wrote:
>>
>>> lynx wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Rowland's response to my query was that he distributed the video to
>>>> those who he thought could 'handle it'. So what he said in effect is
>>>> that it's ok for our actions to be determined by the morality of those
>>>> who are to be the beneficiaries of them, rather than our own. The
>>>> application of such philosophy would mean that it's ok to distribute
>>>> child pornography, as long as it was only sent it to those who were
>>>> 'into' child pornography and could 'handle it'. Or that it's ok to be a
>>>> drug dealer, just so long as you only sold drugs to those who could
>>>> 'handle' them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Ah, yes.. the slippery slope defence (Jesus to child porn and drugs in
>>> one foul swoop).
>>>
>>> I do believe you've misunderstood. "Handle it" has nothing to do with
>>> morality, but with maturity.
>>>
>>>
>> Oh ok.. so when you're spiritually mature, it's ok to ridicule Jesus.
>> Sorry, but I don't buy it.
>>
>
> Still not there yet..
>
>
>> A Christian Pastor is publicly distributing a video ridiculing the
>> Christ he supposedly worships, and one that would give offence to all
>> decent christians, and even non-christians who would deem it
>> inappropriate, and you see no fault with that. Why am I not surprised.
>>
>
> It's the idol meat saga all over again..
>
> And it's those who are so puritanical and ascetic that they can't see
> that meat is beneficial.. so they're still drinking milk from the breast.
>
twisted logic.. Revering Jesus is like drinking milk and immature.
Ridiculing Jesus is like eating meat and mature. ( ?? ) Nup, still don't
get it.
>
>>> "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I
>>> reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind
>>> me." 1 Cor 13:11
>>>
>>>
>> And when you're 'spiritually mature' you babble like Lawrence! :)
>>
>
> "Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess
> knowledge.[a] Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 2The man who
> thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. 3But
> the man who loves God is known by God.
>
> 4So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol
> is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5For
> even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as
> indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6yet for us there is but
> one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and
> there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and
> through whom we live.
>
> 7But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to
> idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been
> sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is
> defiled. 8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we
> do not eat, and no better if we do."
>
> 1 Cor 8:1-8..
>
> "babble" = quoting Scripture ?
>
and through whom we live". Yet you argue that it's ok to ridicule this
Lord you supposedly serve, and through whom you live, and to do so in
public, and to encourage others to do so by promoting a video. Sure
sounds like babble to me..
> lawrence
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Why are they called apartments when they're all stuck together?'
(: Lawrence Meckan :)
> Ridiculing Jesus is 'beneficial'?? Let me see if I can follow your
> twisted logic.. Revering Jesus is like drinking milk and immature.
> Ridiculing Jesus is like eating meat and mature. ( ?? ) Nup, still don't
> get it.
Revering Jesus is good. Revering Jesus to the point that good cognitive
functions like humour, laughter and other natural processes of mental
health get quashed or limited (through stuff like asceticism,
fundamentalism and puritanicalism) is bad. Obviously those who can't
'handle it' are the ones now with their consciences offended, and a
similar parallel was shown in Scripture towards idol meat.. which means
they probably need to buy a GSOH somewhere down the track.
In the same way that man cannot live on bread alone, neither is it good
for him to live exclusively on either meat or milk. Balance is required.
Balance, symmetry and contrast is a hard act. Any idiot can centre
something, but it takes skill to deliver balance.
lawrence
Mark T
> So you don't subscribe to the idea that Pastors/ministers are 'ordained by
> God' then. A Pastor/Priest/Minister has no more 'authority' than anyone
> else to teach, counsel. etc., in the christian faith? By that view it
> would be impossible to have any Church structure, save for administrative
> purposes.
That sounds good!
Mark T
>> Which makes "pastors" no different than the rest of society.
...
> Is a doctor no different to a construction worker since neither should
> commit crimes?
Correct!~
> Rowland's response to my query was that he distributed the video to those
> who he thought could 'handle it'.
... which would not include brain-dead anti-art fundamentalists.
> it's ok to be a drug dealer, just so long as you only sold drugs to those
> who could > 'handle' them.
Definitely ... only we call the authorised drug dealers Chemists.
Chemists used to sell heroin as a cold cure.
Christians such as Elizabeth Barret-Browning used to take Laudenum.
Mark T
> A Christian Pastor is publicly distributing a video ridiculing the Christ
> he supposedly worships
Christians who worship the One God rather than his human Messiah don't have
a problem with it.
>> "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I
>> reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind
>> me." 1 Cor 13:11
>
> And when you're ...
... childish you rave on like Pedrododo / Stynx and fundamentalists.
Mark T
> ".. there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and
> through whom we live"
A misquote from Paul 50 -60 CE (RSV - my emphasis)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I CORINTHIANS
3:23 You are CHRIST's; and CHRIST is GOD's.
8:5 ... there are indeed many "gods" and many "lords" - yet there is ONE
GOD, THE FATHER, from whom are all things, and for whom we exist, and the
LORD JESUS CHRIST, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
My Blog - - my thoughts on Christianity/ song covers & pics & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
lynx
>
>> Ridiculing Jesus is 'beneficial'?? Let me see if I can follow your
>> twisted logic.. Revering Jesus is like drinking milk and immature.
>> Ridiculing Jesus is like eating meat and mature. ( ?? ) Nup, still don't
>> get it.
>>
>
> Revering Jesus is good. Revering Jesus to the point that good cognitive
> functions like humour, laughter and other natural processes of mental
> health get quashed or limited (through stuff like asceticism,
> fundamentalism and puritanicalism) is bad. Obviously those who can't
> 'handle it' are the ones now with their consciences offended, and a
> similar parallel was shown in Scripture towards idol meat.. which means
> they probably need to buy a GSOH somewhere down the track.
>
now. I'm sorry, but you're never going to convince me that a Pastor
encouraging/promoting irreverence is good pastoring, or that the ability
to make fun of Jesus is somehow spiritual maturity.
> In the same way that man cannot live on bread alone, neither is it good
> for him to live exclusively on either meat or milk. Balance is required.
>
> Balance, symmetry and contrast is a hard act. Any idiot can centre
> something, but it takes skill to deliver balance.
>
in reality.
> lawrence
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'No matter how fast your PC is,
Microsoft will find some way to slow it down'
(: Lawrence Meckan :)
> (: Lawrence Meckan :) wrote:
>
>> lynx wrote:
>>
>>> Ridiculing Jesus is 'beneficial'?? Let me see if I can follow your
>>> twisted logic.. Revering Jesus is like drinking milk and immature.
>>> Ridiculing Jesus is like eating meat and mature. ( ?? ) Nup, still don't
>>> get it.
>>>
>>
>> Revering Jesus is good. Revering Jesus to the point that good cognitive
>> functions like humour, laughter and other natural processes of mental
>> health get quashed or limited (through stuff like asceticism,
>> fundamentalism and puritanicalism) is bad. Obviously those who can't
>> 'handle it' are the ones now with their consciences offended, and a
>> similar parallel was shown in Scripture towards idol meat.. which means
>> they probably need to buy a GSOH somewhere down the track.
>>
>
> IYNSHO of course. The other view is the one I've stated several times
> now. I'm sorry, but you're never going to convince me that a Pastor
> encouraging/promoting irreverence is good pastoring, or that the ability
> to make fun of Jesus is somehow spiritual maturity.
People can be *too serious* and *too intense*, you know.. You're one of
them..
God gave humanity the ability to enjoy life. Why mustn't we ?
lawrence
Chuck Stamford
"(: Lawrence Meckan :)" <lme...@SMEEyahoo.com> wrote in message
No one is arguing against the benefits of good humor. But you're trying to
say God gave us the faculty so that we could use it to ridicule His Son!
That's an insane argument, and you're a dolt for even trying to make it.
Where is your sense of what's right and what's wrong?! Tell you what,
Larry; when you come before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ, and the books
are open, be sure to point out that you argued for those who found this
video funny, and that you were sure He did as well...........just before He
asks you to come put your finger into the holes in His hands and feet, and
your hand into the spear thrust in His side, that He took for you. Serious?
You bet Jesus was serious about dying for your sins. And you've got the
GALL to argue for those who would ridicule that sacrifice by trying to make
this about having a sense of humor or not having one?? About being
"puritanical" verses "normal"??? It's absolutely disgusting! It makes me
sorry I've lived long enough to see it out of the same mouth that, when the
stars are just right, and the moment is convenient, claims faith in Jesus
Christ.
If you're not deeply ashamed of yourself, you should be, because you will
be, and that is guaranteed.
Chuck Stamford
(: Lawrence Meckan :)
So Jesus never used hyperbole as part of his own ministry ?
Think and study Scripture before you answer.
> That's an insane argument, and you're a dolt for even trying to make it.
It's not my argument. It's your strawman. Assumption built on assumption
concerning where I start and end with it, and it will bring you down as
you dug the pit and you will fall in it.
> Where is your sense of what's right and what's wrong?!
Right here.
> Tell you what,
> Larry; when you come before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ, and the books
> are open, be sure to point out that you argued for those who found this
> video funny, and that you were sure He did as well...........just before He
> asks you to come put your finger into the holes in His hands and feet, and
> your hand into the spear thrust in His side, that He took for you. Serious?
And if you actually *read* Jesus' words when he spoke about the book of
life being opened, he said that whoever did such acts for the least of
these.. were done *for Him* matter in judgement. Nothing else.
The poor and the needy and those who are rejected by the religious or
political establishment (in Jesus' day, lepers; in today's culture,
homosexuals, urban poor, "stupid" poverty [DATA & the One Campaign])
matter to God more than spouting dogma or doctrine. The doctrines I hold
will always remain incomplete this side of heaven and I'm quite happy
with that. I can help people even if I don't have my doctrines correctly
signed off, approved, and posted in triplicate to you.
> You bet Jesus was serious about dying for your sins. And you've got the
> GALL to argue for those who would ridicule that sacrifice by trying to make
> this about having a sense of humor or not having one??
Not what I'm arguing from. Sorry, but the basis from which I present my
thoughts is something other than the effigy you are burning on your
front lawn this Christmas day. At least have the honesty and fairness to
ask what basis I come at this issue from, instead of displaying yourself
as someone who lives on the assumptions and prejudices he has about others.
> About being "puritanical" verses "normal"??? It's absolutely disgusting!
Good mental health requires balance. Puritans and ascetics fail at these
things in spades.
> It makes me sorry I've lived long enough to see it out of the same mouth that, when the
> stars are just right, and the moment is convenient, claims faith in Jesus
> Christ.
I know Jesus is the Messiah. I affirm his teaching. After all, his own
teaching used hyperbole in the same way this video that offends your
conscience does.
> If you're not deeply ashamed of yourself, you should be, because you will
> be, and that is guaranteed.
On this Christmas day, you've done over half a dozen rant posts towards
various people. That leaves me begging the question.. Why ? What
motivates you to attack people in such a way on this day ?
lawrence
lynx
it's improper to ridicule Jesus? So where do you draw the line with this
sort of thing? - assuming that your even able or willing to draw one. I
recall once clicking on a link in an atheist ng, only to be confronted
with a picture of the Virgin Mary pleasuring herself with a crucifix as
a dildo, and all her womanhood on display. So would that be laughable?
That would be 'Art' I suppose.
> lawrence
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?'
lynx
> Tell you what,
> Larry; when you come before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ, and the books
> are open, be sure to point out that you argued for those who found this
> video funny, and that you were sure He did as well...........just before He
> asks you to come put your finger into the holes in His hands and feet, and
> your hand into the spear thrust in His side, that He took for you. Serious?
> You bet Jesus was serious about dying for your sins. And you've got the
> GALL to argue for those who would ridicule that sacrifice by trying to make
> this about having a sense of humor or not having one?? About being
> "puritanical" verses "normal"??? It's absolutely disgusting! It makes me
> sorry I've lived long enough to see it out of the same mouth that, when the
> stars are just right, and the moment is convenient, claims faith in Jesus
> Christ.
>
> If you're not deeply ashamed of yourself, you should be, because you will
> be, and that is guaranteed.
>
> Chuck Stamford
>
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Dinner will be ready when the smoke alarm goes off!'
(: Lawrence Meckan :)
You're still not getting it.
Look at the video again. Ask yourself why Jesus was wearing white, and
why he had the look he did. See, what was portrayed in the video was the
Westernised cultural view of Jesus. Ask yourself why the soundtrack of
"I will survive" was used. They chose these things for a reason, Pete.
The video is a piece of art in the same way Piss Christ (done by a
Catholic no less) is a piece of art. To understand art, like literature
(e.g. the Bible), you need to take cultural and contextual cues in order
to gain the right understanding that the artist wants to get across.
It's no use coming at something from a 21st century Westernised
conservative mindset if the message is contextually and culturally
different.. as it is in the case of this video and also the Bible. The
only reason you get offended is that you don't understand the context
and culture from which it comes.
> So where do you draw the line with this
> sort of thing? - assuming that your even able or willing to draw one. I
> recall once clicking on a link in an atheist ng, only to be confronted
> with a picture of the Virgin Mary pleasuring herself with a crucifix as
> a dildo, and all her womanhood on display. So would that be laughable?
What message was it trying to convey ? From your description of it, it
had a different context and message than humour or hyperbole as in the
case of this video..
> That would be 'Art' I suppose.
It would be art. The meaning behind the message however would be
significantly different than what was conveyed in the video.
lawrence
lynx
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'I don't know how I got over the hill without getting to the top!'
(: Lawrence Meckan :)
Tell me something that's true instead of this recycled strawman.
I've tried to educate you into how to understand art correctly, but if
you want to continue to be ignorant of the truth, so be it.
lawrence
lynx
> lynx wrote:
>
>> (: Lawrence Meckan :) wrote:
>>
>>> lynx wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> So where do you draw the line with this
>>>> sort of thing? - assuming that your even able or willing to draw one. I
>>>> recall once clicking on a link in an atheist ng, only to be confronted
>>>> with a picture of the Virgin Mary pleasuring herself with a crucifix as
>>>> a dildo, and all her womanhood on display. So would that be laughable?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What message was it trying to convey ? From your description of it, it
>>> had a different context and message than humour or hyperbole as in the
>>> case of this video..
>>>
>>>
>>>> That would be 'Art' I suppose.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It would be art. The meaning behind the message however would be
>>> significantly different than what was conveyed in the video.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> Tell me something that's true instead of this recycled strawman.
>
> I've tried to educate you into how to understand art correctly, but if
> you want to continue to be ignorant of the truth, so be it.
>
that you're unable to even know that you're sick! You can't even
determine the bounds of common decency, let alone anything else!
> lawrence
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'No one is perfect, but some of us are closer than others'
(: Lawrence Meckan :)
> (: Lawrence Meckan :) wrote:
>
>> lynx wrote:
>>
>>> (: Lawrence Meckan :) wrote:
>>>
>>>> lynx wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> So where do you draw the line with this
>>>>> sort of thing? - assuming that your even able or willing to draw
>>>>> one. I
>>>>> recall once clicking on a link in an atheist ng, only to be confronted
>>>>> with a picture of the Virgin Mary pleasuring herself with a
>>>>> crucifix as
>>>>> a dildo, and all her womanhood on display. So would that be laughable?
>>>>>
>>>> What message was it trying to convey ? From your description of it, it
>>>> had a different context and message than humour or hyperbole as in the
>>>> case of this video..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That would be 'Art' I suppose.
>>>>>
>
> (sarcasm intended)
You're still not getting it, are you ?
It may still be art due to it being a creative act on the part of the
person who created the thing in the first place. Your sarcasm is
actually closer to the truth than you think (or would like to imagine).
I've been studying gothic, horror, macabre and trash art due to a new
acquaintance I've met. Sure, it's the total opposite of the design work
I produce myself, both conceptually and culturally, but it's still art.
It's there to create a message.. Sometimes I agree with the message.
Sometimes I don't. It's no use getting all offended if I fail to
understand the message in the first place.. (which is what I see you,
Chuck and others doing).
lawrence
lynx
> lynx wrote:
>
>> (: Lawrence Meckan :) wrote:
>>
>>> lynx wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> (: Lawrence Meckan :) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> lynx wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> So where do you draw the line with this
>>>>>> sort of thing? - assuming that your even able or willing to draw
>>>>>> one. I
>>>>>> recall once clicking on a link in an atheist ng, only to be confronted
>>>>>> with a picture of the Virgin Mary pleasuring herself with a
>>>>>> crucifix as
>>>>>> a dildo, and all her womanhood on display. So would that be laughable?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> What message was it trying to convey ? From your description of it, it
>>>>> had a different context and message than humour or hyperbole as in the
>>>>> case of this video..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> That would be 'Art' I suppose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> (sarcasm intended)
>>
>
> You're still not getting it, are you ?
>
to call what I described above art, and excuse the offence it causes. I
tell you what Lawrence, I'm going to crap on the kitchen table, spray it
with red paint, and send it to you. You can hang it on your wall as art!
> lawrence
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Attention! New Virus found- Microsoft Windows!'
Jude Alexander
"lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:8pDjh.12695$HU....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Jude Alexander wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Well said. All people have feet of clay. We shouldn't give "holy man"
>> status to pastors/ministers/etc.. I don't get this generally typical
>> "need" for people to have heros.
>>
>>
>
> So you don't subscribe to the idea that Pastors/ministers are 'ordained by
> God' then. A Pastor/Priest/Minister has no more 'authority' than anyone
> else to teach, counsel. etc., in the christian faith? By that view it
> would be impossible to have any Church structure, save for administrative
> purposes.
I can't make that blanket statement about everybody who teaches. I just
don't and can never know that. I just know that JUST BECAUSE a
pastor/priest/minister exists doesn't necessarily mean he is "chosen" to
teach. The choice could EASILY have been his own. He could even be
somewhat good. Just being good at teaching doesn't necessarily equate to
being "called" to teach.
There has always been the assumption that pastors/priests/ministers were
specially called and specially equipped to teach but, obviously, that isn't
true.
As just an easy example, all the sons who take over their "father's"
business.... and I'm not talking about God, the father. I'm talking about
their earthy fathers. It's like Billy Graham & Son. It's like Pat
Robertson & Son. Many others exist also.
There is a particular egotistical element involved in being a leader and
unfortunately religious leadership isn't immune.
Moira de Swardt
> > Well said. All people have feet of clay. We shouldn't give
"holy man"
> > status to pastors/ministers/etc.. I don't get this generally
typical "need"
> > for people to have heros.
> So you don't subscribe to the idea that Pastors/ministers are
'ordained
> by God' then. A Pastor/Priest/Minister has no more 'authority'
than
> anyone else to teach, counsel. etc., in the christian faith? By
that
> view it would be impossible to have any Church structure, save for
> administrative purposes.
A clergy person is ordained by God, but this doesn't make him or her
any more special or less inclined to sin than other people. Church
structure is ideally a function, not a status. Bearing in mind that
no one person has all the gifts of the spirit it is very possible
that a clergy person is not the best person in the congregation to
preach, teach, counsel, administer etc. and quite definite that this
person would not be best at all of them. My particular skills don't
run to counselling and administration. I used two professional
counsellors for most of the counselling and the church secretary is
a librarian with administrative skills and the current church
treasurer is a professional accountant. However, I also don't do
all the preaching and I do only some of the teaching.
--
Moira de Swardt posting from Johannesburg, South Africa
Remove the dot in my address to find me at home.
Moira de Swardt
"lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> False logic. Is a doctor no different to a construction worker
since
> neither should commit crimes?
In what way do you perceive a doctor being spiritually different
from a construction worker (or the pastor)? Within the church why
do you think that more or less would be expected of the one than the
other?
> Or that it's ok to be a
> drug dealer, just so long as you only sold drugs to those who
could
> 'handle' them.
Is this not what pharmacists do?
Moira de Swardt
"(: Lawrence Meckan :)" <lme...@SMEEyahoo.com> wrote in message
> I prefer my leaders to be honest, instead of having to hide their
> shortcomings.
Such honesty tends to build strong churches, because one can ask for
help in areas of weakness. It makes it ok to come back to the
loving and tolerant body of Christ when one has failed. It builds a
body of believers who strive towards the goal together, helping
rather than condemning one another.
Mark T
> I recall once clicking on a link in an atheist ng, only to be confronted
> with a picture of the Virgin Mary pleasuring herself with a crucifix as a
> dildo, and all her womanhood on display. So would that be laughable? That
> would be 'Art' I suppose.
The same idea was used in The Exorcist ... and yes, it was art.
--
In our times, various ideologically dedicated groups increasingly use
censorship, coercion, or propaganda to limit access to ideas, literature,
and the arts that they consider threatening. p.74
Censorship, the twin brother of propaganda, is the tool of despots, of
ideologues, of ayatollahs, of fanatics. p.96
Franky Schaeffer [a Christian] "Sham Pearls For Real Swine" ( Wolgemuth &
Hyatt; Brentwood:1990)
Mark T
Ah! The Fundie Phillistines!!!!
lynx
> "lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>
>
>> False logic. Is a doctor no different to a construction worker
>>
>> since neither should commit crimes?
>>
>
> In what way do you perceive a doctor being spiritually different
> from a construction worker (or the pastor)? Within the church why
> do you think that more or less would be expected of the one than the
> other?
>
or else why is he a Pastor at all?
>
>> Or that it's ok to be a
>> drug dealer, just so long as you only sold drugs to those who
>>
>> could 'handle' them.
>>
>
> Is this not what pharmacists do?
>
> --
> Moira de Swardt posting from Johannesburg, South Africa
> Remove the dot in my address to find me at home.
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'All computers wait at the same speed'
lynx
> "lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>
>> Jude Alexander wrote:
>>
>>> Well said. All people have feet of clay. We shouldn't give "holy man"
>>>
>>> status to pastors/ministers/etc.. I don't get this generally
>>>
>>> typical "need" for people to have heros.
>>>
>> So you don't subscribe to the idea that Pastors/ministers are
>>
>>
>> anyone else to teach, counsel. etc., in the christian faith? By that
>>
>> view it would be impossible to have any Church structure, save for
>> administrative purposes.
>>
>
> A clergy person is ordained by God, but this doesn't make him or her
> any more special or less inclined to sin than other people. Church
> structure is ideally a function, not a status. Bearing in mind that
> no one person has all the gifts of the spirit it is very possible
> that a clergy person is not the best person in the congregation to
> preach, teach, counsel, administer etc. and quite definite that this
> person would not be best at all of them. My particular skills don't
> run to counselling and administration. I used two professional
> counsellors for most of the counselling and the church secretary is
> a librarian with administrative skills and the current church
> treasurer is a professional accountant. However, I also don't do
> all the preaching and I do only some of the teaching.
>
Pastor/Priest/Minister is a 'special' person. This seems to be the case
these days. I'm not even sure what their role is or is even supposed to
be in the modern Church now.
> --
> Moira de Swardt posting from Johannesburg, South Africa
> Remove the dot in my address to find me at home.
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'It's called PMT because 'mad cow disease' is already taken'
Mark T
>> You're still not getting it, are you ?
>
> Yes I am. I'm getting that you're a very sick person if you are willing to
> call what I described above art, and excuse the offence it causes.
"Art is meant to disturb." - George Braques
(A quote I recently used in the regional art gallery newsletter ... which I
edit every 6 weeks.)
> I tell you what Lawrence, I'm going to crap on the kitchen table, spray
> it with red paint, and send it to you. You can hang it on your wall as
> art!
It's been done already.
Try to be more original.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHAT IS ART?
"I never read...I just look at pictures" Andy Warhol (a)
It doesn't matter how the paint is put on, as long as something is
said. -Jackson Pollock
Where the spirit does not work with the hand there is no art.
/Leonardo da Vinci
There isnt a rule, I dont want to keep any rules. Thats why my art might be
so good, because I have no fear. /Eva Hesse
"We live in a rainbow of chaos." /Paul Cezanne
"Every act of creation is first an act of destruction." //Picasso
I am still learning. /Michelangelo
"I work in whatever medium likes me at the moment." /Marc Chagall
I don't paint things. I only paint the difference between things.. /Henri
Matisse
From my rotting body, flowers shall grow and I am in them and that is
eternity. /Edvard Munch
Everyone discusses my art and pretends to understand, as if it were
necessary to understand, when it is simply necessary to love.
/Claude Monet
Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth.
/Pablo Picasso
When it hurts this good, it's gotta go in the gallery!
/Chris Burden
The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but
their inward significance.
/Aristotle
The object of art is to give life a shape.
/Jean Anouilh
God is in the details.
"Art is not a mirror to reflect the world but a hammer with which to shape
it."
VLADIMIR MAYAKOVSKY
The artist is not a different kind of person, but every person is a
different kind of artist. / Eric Gill
I put my heart and my soul into my work, and have lost my mind in the
process. / Vincent Van Gogh
Art is making something out of nothing and selling it. / /Frank Zappa
(1940 - 1993)
We must never forget that art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of
truth. / John F. Kennedy (1917 - 1963)
Art is either plagiarism or revolution. / /Paul Gauguin (1848 - 1903)
Art is meant to disturb. / George Braque
lynx
> "lynx" wrote:
>
>> I recall once clicking on a link in an atheist ng, only to be confronted
>> with a picture of the Virgin Mary pleasuring herself with a crucifix as a
>> dildo, and all her womanhood on display. So would that be laughable? That
>> would be 'Art' I suppose.
>>
>
> The same idea was used in The Exorcist ... and yes, it was art.
>
to get the message across it seems. So let me put it more clearly. Both
you and Lawrence (as self proclaimed christians) are saying that a
photo/picture of the Virgin Mary- one of the most Holy figures in
Christendom- sitting on a stool with her legs wide open and ramming a
crucifix in her cunt is Art. That's what you're saying. But then neither
of you are sane. A normal person would just call that disgusting filth
intended as nothing more than offence to those of christian faith.
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Put it off long enough, and it just might go away'
Mark T
>>> I recall once clicking on a link in an atheist ng, only to be
>>> confronted with a picture of the Virgin Mary pleasuring herself with a
>>> crucifix as a dildo, and all her womanhood on display. So would that be
>>> laughable? That would be 'Art' I suppose.
>> The same idea was used in The Exorcist ... and yes, it was art.
...
> Both you and Lawrence (as self proclaimed christians) are saying that a
> photo/picture of the Virgin Mary- one of the most Holy figures in
> Christendom
I have never said that Jesus' mother Mary was "one of the most Holy figures
in
Christendom". She's just an ordinary woman.
If Jesus is God then she is the mother of God ... which is a bit of a
problem because Jesus inherits all of Mary's DNA.
Does God really have a Mother and Father?
Do God's Mother and Father also have a Mother and Father???? They would be
God's GrandMother and Grandfather!!!
Does God have Great Grandparents?????
Does God have Great Great Grandparents????
Does God have Great Great Great Grandparents????
.... proceed ad nuseum ....
>- sitting on a stool with her legs wide open and ramming a crucifix in her
>cunt is Art. That's what you're saying.
Yep, it can be!
> A normal person would just call that disgusting filth intended as nothing
> more than offence to those of christian faith.
"Art is meant to disturb." - George Braques
--
lynx
> "lynx" wrote:
>
>>>> I recall once clicking on a link in an atheist ng, only to be
>>>> confronted with a picture of the Virgin Mary pleasuring herself with a
>>>> crucifix as a dildo, and all her womanhood on display. So would that be
>>>> laughable? That would be 'Art' I suppose.
>>>>
>>> The same idea was used in The Exorcist ... and yes, it was art.
>>>
>> photo/picture of the Virgin Mary- one of the most Holy figures in
>> Christendom
>>
>
> I have never said that Jesus' mother Mary was "one of the most Holy figures
> in Christendom". She's just an ordinary woman.
>
truth of the fact that the Virgin Mary is a Holy figure in Christendom.
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'I'm not tense, just terribly, terribly alert'
lynx
> "lynx" wrote:
>
>>> You're still not getting it, are you ?
>>>
>> Yes I am. I'm getting that you're a very sick person if you are willing to
>> call what I described above art, and excuse the offence it causes.
>>
>
> "Art is meant to disturb." - George Braques
>
Renoir in the family room (not originals of course! ) Nothing disturbing
about those. Neither is the 'Mona Lisa disturbing', or Gainboroughs
'Blue Boy', or 'Dans la Vallee de l'Oise' by Cezanne, etc., etc., etc.,
Pollocks 'Blue Poles' is not disturbing. Art is not MEANT to disturb. It
can disturb. That's a different matter. And anyone can call anything
art, what's to stop them? And some fools do.. like you for instance.
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Where you stand on a issue, depends on where you sit!'
Chuck Stamford
> Mark T wrote:
>
>> "lynx" wrote:
>>
>>>> You're still not getting it, are you ?
>>>>
>>> Yes I am. I'm getting that you're a very sick person if you are willing
>>> to
>>> call what I described above art, and excuse the offence it causes.
>>>
>>
>> "Art is meant to disturb." - George Braques
>>
>
> I have a Rembrandt in the Study, a Constable in the Dining area, a Renoir
> in the family room (not originals of course! )
Bummer! You were going WAY up on my list of really good friends, Pete ;-)
Chuck Stamford
lynx
my electric golf buggy.. ! :)
> Chuck Stamford
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Press any key to continue or any other key to quit... '
Moira de Swardt
"lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> So once again you're getting away from the idea that a
> Pastor/Priest/Minister is a 'special' person. This seems to be the
case
> these days. I'm not even sure what their role is or is even
supposed to
> be in the modern Church now.
A clergy person is the servant of the Lord and the people, to use
his or her human talents and spiritual gifts to the glory of God and
the upliftment of the people.
The exact role will depend on the congregation, the circumstances,
the gifts, the need etc.
The fact that one doesn't have *a* specific role makes one dependent
on listening to the people and for the will of God. It calls for
greater humility and obedience than hierarchical structures do.
Moira de Swardt
"lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> Moira de Swardt wrote:
> > "lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> >> False logic. Is a doctor no different to a construction worker
> >> since neither should commit crimes?
> > In what way do you perceive a doctor being spiritually different
> > from a construction worker (or the pastor)? Within the church
why
> > do you think that more or less would be expected of the one than
the
> > other?
> I was talking about the role of a person. A Pastor has a specific
role,
> or else why is he a Pastor at all?
So the pastor has a role of pastoring. What do you understand by
pastoring? My understanding of pastoring is the exercising the
spiritual gift of nuturing people spiritually. It means encouraging
people to find their gifts, to exercise them. It means being with
people as they walk their spiritual journeys. I also understand it
to mean caring for people spiritually when they are hurting.
But it doesn't mean being "holier" than others.
Interesting thoughts.
Chuck Stamford
> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>
>> "lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>> news:_7%jh.13361$HU.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>> Mark T wrote:
>>>
>>>> "lynx" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> You're still not getting it, are you ?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes I am. I'm getting that you're a very sick person if you are
>>>>> willing to call what I described above art, and excuse the offence it
>>>>> causes.
>>>>>
>>>> "Art is meant to disturb." - George Braques
>>>>
>>> I have a Rembrandt in the Study, a Constable in the Dining area, a
>>> Renoir in the family room (not originals of course! )
>>>
>>
>> Bummer! You were going WAY up on my list of really good friends, Pete
>> ;-)
>>
>
> Typical! Ppl only want me for what I can do for them. lol! But I do have
> my electric golf buggy.. ! :)
They go *down* in value as they get older. 'Till I got to the parenthetical
in your first sentence, I thought our friendship was going to be like a fine
wine ;-)
Just kidding. I'd rather play eighteen with you and ride in that nice new
buggy all afternoon than look at a painting, original or not. Have you had
the portable blender installed yet? I hear they have aftermarket kits if
not.
Chuck Stamford
Eric Fisher
more special or less inclined to sin than other people.
<><>><>><>
while you are scurrying to "put the clergy in their place" don't miss
the point that they are in a position of increased responsibility.
lynx
> "lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:lf0kh.13387$HU....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>
>>> "lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:_7%jh.13361$HU.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>> Mark T wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "lynx" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're still not getting it, are you ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes I am. I'm getting that you're a very sick person if you are
>>>>>> willing to call what I described above art, and excuse the offence it
>>>>>> causes.
>>>>>>
>>>>> "Art is meant to disturb." - George Braques
>>>>>
>>>> I have a Rembrandt in the Study, a Constable in the Dining area, a
>>>> Renoir in the family room (not originals of course! )
>>>>
>>> Bummer! You were going WAY up on my list of really good friends, Pete
>>> ;-)
>>>
>> Typical! Ppl only want me for what I can do for them. lol! But I do have
>> my electric golf buggy.. ! :)
>>
>
> They go *down* in value as they get older. 'Till I got to the parenthetical
> in your first sentence, I thought our friendship was going to be like a fine
> wine ;-)
>
> Just kidding. I'd rather play eighteen with you and ride in that nice new
> buggy all afternoon than look at a painting, original or not.
your doorstep! Only I don't know where you live, so that could be a
problem. :(
> Have you had
> the portable blender installed yet? I hear they have aftermarket kits if
> not.
>
> Chuck Stamford
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'Every man should marry. After all, happiness is not the only thing in life'
Len B
"Moira de Swardt" <moir...@wol.co.za> wrote in message
news:p--dnXT3PvJ_Pg3Y...@is.co.za...
assertions of the self-appointed. (What else would a pretender say?) A true
minister is God-appointed. A true minister uses their God-given talents, not
their human talents.
Scripture is plentiful on this topic. Try:
Romans 7:18 "nothing good dwells in me "
Philippians 4:13 "I can do all things through Him who strengthens me"
1Peter 4:11 "whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the
strength which God supplies"
-- Len
Moira de Swardt
"Len B" <gonehome(atoptusnet:com:au)> wrote in message
> "Moira de Swardt" <moir...@wol.co.za> wrote in message
> > A clergy person is the servant of the Lord and the people, to
use
> > his or her human talents and spiritual gifts to the glory of God
and
> > the upliftment of the people.
> Pete is right. A minister IS a special person despite the opposite
> assertions of the self-appointed. (What else would a pretender
say?) A true
> minister is God-appointed. A true minister uses their God-given
talents, not
> their human talents.
Human talents. The ones which one would have whether or not one was
a Christian. Like playing the piano. I could play the piano before
I became a Christian. Are you suggesting that I now refuse to play
the piano because God didn't hand me that ability specifically after
I became a Christian? Or that I would have been unable to play the
piano if I had chosen to become a Satanist rather than a Christian
because playing the piano is "God given"?
r m
"Len B" <gonehome(atoptusnet:com:au)> wrote in message
>
> "Moira de Swardt" <moir...@wol.co.za> wrote in message
> news:p--dnXT3PvJ_Pg3Y...@is.co.za...
>>
>> "lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> So once again you're getting away from the idea that a
>>> Pastor/Priest/Minister is a 'special' person. This seems to be the
>> case
>>> these days. I'm not even sure what their role is or is even
>> supposed to
>>> be in the modern Church now.
>>
>> A clergy person is the servant of the Lord and the people, to use
>> his or her human talents and spiritual gifts to the glory of God and
>> the upliftment of the people.
>>
>> The exact role will depend on the congregation, the circumstances,
>> the gifts, the need etc.
>>
>> The fact that one doesn't have *a* specific role makes one dependent
>> on listening to the people and for the will of God. It calls for
>> greater humility and obedience than hierarchical structures do.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Moira de Swardt posting from Johannesburg, South Africa
>> Remove the dot in my address to find me at home.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Pete is right. A minister IS a special person despite the opposite
> assertions of the self-appointed. (What else would a pretender say?) A
Not necessarily. See Acts 6:3 and Tit 1:5.
> ... A true minister uses their God-given talents, not their human
> talents.
I don't think that talents [abilities?] are always the same as spiritual
gifts; nor should they con-fused alike.
Spiritual gifts are for the common good (1Cor 12:7): Whereas, we are to be
trustworthy stewards ( 1Cor 4:1-2 cf Matt 25:15ff).
A true minister is a pastor in heart (1Pet 5:1-3).
(: Lawrence Meckan :)
> Pete is right. A minister IS a special person despite the opposite
> assertions of the self-appointed. (What else would a pretender say?) A true
> minister is God-appointed. A true minister uses their God-given talents, not
> their human talents.
But the "true minister" isn't God appointed. God isn't the only one who
does the appointment.
They are as much community and laity appointed as appointed by the Holy
Spirit. This is what the history of the Church shows.
I'm unsure when the power to appoint was removed from the laity, but
it's now so pervasive across all forms of Church life (Catholic,
Protestant and Orthodox), that we seem to have a mistaken idea that God
alone appoints (or even worse, God and the clergy)..
lawrence
* irenic *
"(: Lawrence Meckan :)" <lme...@SMEEyahoo.com> wrote in message
Lawrence, 'appointment' of clergy is done of course by whoever has the power
in the church community - in traditional groups like the Catholics/Orthodox
the Bishop's role is paramount; though Anglicans in the Western world have
modified that by appointing local small committees in their churches to
recommend appointees (not so in the Two-thirds' world Anglicanism, AFAIK).
Similarly with groups like the Salvation Army, which now is more democratic
than it's been in the past. Baptists are supposed to be 'democratic' (which
they didn't get from the Bible, BTW, - Paul told Titus to appoint church
leaders, not form a committee to do it)...
The laity's role in most 'democratic' churches is to vote for or veto
whoever the 'call committee' - often vetted by the Church Council or
similar - suggests...
Have a good New Year BTW, and thanks for your advisory/developmental role in
the JMM website (glad we clarified those roles in these groups a few months
back :-)
--
Shalom! Rowland Croucher
'It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
for sure that just ain't so' (Mark Twain)
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ - 18,700 articles/ 4000 humour
Len B
"r m" <rm@hotmailDOTcom> wrote in message
news:459182b6$0$19406$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
You are right rm. The life lived is the true badge of a pastor. Peter had
seen first hand a true shepherd. He remembered but now knew by personal
experience what qualities are required. You won't find many mentions of
partaking in the "sufferings" or of the "glory to be revealed" in the
offerings of the self-appointed to whom neither has been revealed.
The qualities mentioned in each of the other two verses you mention are
likewise in short supply.
In no way was I suggesting that we forget or lose our human talents. They
are ours and we must look after them and use them appropriately. However,
they ought not be considered part of a "ministry". If there is occasion for
piano playing, then play it but let's not call it something it is not.
Manifestations of the Spirit are an entirely different event over which the
believer has no say (except to quench) - such things as the word of wisdom
and the distinguishing of spirits.
The gifts of the Spirit however are another matter again. They differ
according to the grace given to an individual - such things as giving,
serving and exhorting are to be exercised by believers at their will.
So we have three items to consider -
Talent - our ability, our will.
Manifestations - His ability, His will.
Gifts - His ability, our will.
And none of these has anything to do with spiritual oversight (except that
the overseer ought to know what they are and 'use' them appropiately as any
other true believer would).
It is scacely surprising that Pete (and others) will say
> I'm not even sure what their role is or is even supposed to be in the
> modern Church now.
Well, Pete, God knew our circumstances socially, culturally (and in every
other aspect of our modern environment) long before He set up His church and
He has described to us in an environment-independant manner what that setup
is. Take Him at His word. It appears to me that you are doing this but Mr
Confusion is active everywhere.
Len B
"Chuck Stamford" <shell__...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:jd3kh.50108$0D2....@newsfe15.phx...
>
> "lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:lf0kh.13387$HU....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>>
>>> "lynx" <no...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:_7%jh.13361$HU.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>> Mark T wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "lynx" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're still not getting it, are you ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes I am. I'm getting that you're a very sick person if you are
>>>>>> willing to call what I described above art, and excuse the offence it
>>>>>> causes.
>>>>>>
>>>>> "Art is meant to disturb." - George Braques
>>>>>
>>>> I have a Rembrandt in the Study, a Constable in the Dining area, a
>>>> Renoir in the family room (not originals of course! )
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bummer! You were going WAY up on my list of really good friends, Pete
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Typical! Ppl only want me for what I can do for them. lol! But I do have
>> my electric golf buggy.. ! :)
>
> They go *down* in value as they get older. 'Till I got to the
> parenthetical in your first sentence, I thought our friendship was going
> to be like a fine wine ;-)
>
WHAT! Humour. On topic at last. ;-)
(: Lawrence Meckan :)
My reading of the ECF was that the power shifted away from the laity the
more institutionalised the Church became. In the earliest documents
(Didache, Constitutions) there was an equality regarding balance of
power between the Spirit, clergy and laity and it was stated as such.
The more you travel through the history of the Church via ECF, ANF and
Catholic documents, the balance is eroded in favour of the clergy.
> The laity's role in most 'democratic' churches is to vote for or veto
> whoever the 'call committee' - often vetted by the Church Council or
> similar - suggests...
Which is usually just the powerbroker (the Bishop / Pastor) saying that
the church accept their recommendation or else they (the laity) don't
follow God (I've been in two churches where this has happened - one
being Baptist, one being Anglican. Greg has also played this card
numerous times against me personally)
So this does beg the question of how the Church has ended up with a
scenario that the powerbroker with a deluded sense of power and
authority regarding their station. The paper trail seems to suggest the
balance shifted to clergy as a matter of expediency.. since as the
Church grew, so did the organisational and institutional management needed.
lawrence