• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!
I'm afraid this is going to fail miserably, but I'll attempt to explain in more detail what exactly I mean.

In a way, I do allow for degrees; however, said degrees diminish much like what occurs as one approaches infinity in calculus. There are things in the texts you and I hold dear that give descriptives regarding G-d whether it be in describing nature or patterns by which G-d operates. Taking your example above, the passage essentially says G-d is righteous and holy. But what exactly does that mean? To me, I haven't a clue. I cannot ascertain G-d's righteousness nor holiness. The only thing that I can grasp from this is a consistency. G-d is both characteristics all the time. That's about all I can get out of it.

Now, when pegging it down to incarnation as a possibility. To me, G-d states explicitly in the Tanakh that G-d is not man. I take this in the same step as I do holiness and righteousness: a consistency.

Ultimately, BKB has touched upon a point that I have held to for a long time now: what's the point? I don't have need of a incarnated saviour. I don't need a mediator. Therefore, it's really irrelevant as to whether G-d can or cannot incarnate. However, considering the "consistency" that I hold on to above it seems to be a negator of the possibility.

Since leaving Christianity, I have espoused what I consider the "awe of G-d". In short, my breath is taken away just when I try to conceive of G-d and G-d's nature. All I can do is try, because I won't be able to actually conceive. I'm not saying Christians can't or don't do this, but my mind has opened since leaving.

Don't know if any of this makes a lick o' sense, but it's out there now.
More agreed than not, that's for sure. And it absolutely does make sense. Of course you know the part I disagree with, but I was just using the incarnation as an example of "knowing" something about God's nature. The whole point was to figure out what you meant by completely incomprehensible.

Thanks.
 
Upvote 0
muffler dragon;1427811; said:
I was coming to this conclusion today as well. The key word that kept popping in my head was "perspective". Things are different according to each person's perspective; therefore, rational and irrational are subjective.

Agree 100%!

I've always liked Luther's rather blunt statement on this very issue:
"Reason is Whore."

But prefer even more Pascal's more poetic statement:
"The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing."
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;1432113; said:
Agree 100%!

I've always liked Luther's rather blunt statement on this very issue:
"Reason is Whore."
Yeah. He also said
What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? I shall give you my sincere advice: First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them.


Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed.This will bring home to them the fact that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.

Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For you, too, must not and cannot protect them unless you wish to become participants in an their abominations in the sight of God. Consider carefully what good could come from this, and prevent it.

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping.

Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen. 3 [:19]). For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting.,

For, as we have heard, God's anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!

In brief, dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule: if my counsel does not please you, find better advice, so that you and we all can be rid of the unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews ... Do not grant them protection, safe-conduct, or communion with us ... so it is not necessary to burden ourselves also with these alien, shameful vices of the Jews ...

And you, my dear gentlemen and friends who are pastors and preachers, I wish to remind very faithfully of your official duty, so that you too may warn your parishioners concerning their eternal harm, as you know how to do, namely, that they be on their guard against the Jews and avoid them so far as possible. Such a desperate, thoroughly evil poisonous, and devilish lot are these Jews, who for these fourteen hundred years have been and still are our plague, our pestilence, and our misfortune.


If you pastors and preachers have followed my example and have faithfully issued such warnings, but neither prince nor subject will do anything about it, let us follow the advice of Christ (Matthew 10:14) and shake the dust from our shoes, and say, "We are innocent of your blood."

I have read and heard many stories about the Jews which agree with this judgment of Christ, namely, how they have poisoned wells, made assassinations, kidnapped children, as related before ... However, it all coincides with the judgment of Christ which declares that they are venomous, bitter, vindictive, tricky serpents, assassins, and children of the devil who sting and work harm stealthily wherever they cannot do it openly ... That is what I had in mind when I said earlier that, next to the devil, a Christian has no more bitter and galling foe than a Jew. There is no other to whom we accord as many benefactions and from whom we suffer as much as we do from these base children of the devil, this brood of vipers.

Now let me commend these Jews sincerely to whoever feels the desire to shelter and feed them, to honor them, to be fleeced, robbed, plundered, defamed, vilified, and cursed by them, and to suffer every evil at their hands -- these venomous serpents and devil's children, who are the most vehement enemies of Christ our Lord and of us all. And if that is not enough, let him stuff them into his mouth, or crawl into their behind and worship this holy object. Then let him boast of his mercy, then let him boast that he has strengthened the devil and his brood for further blaspheming our dear Lord and the precious blood with which we Christians are redeemed. Then he will be a perfect Christian, filled with works of mercy for which Christ will reward him on the day of judgment, together with the Jews in the eternal fire of hell!
Luther got shit wrong though....real wrong. Not a little wrong, mind you, but you-are-so-fucking-clueless-it-strains-the-mind-to-call-you-a-Christian wrong. So I have to look at what he says in light of the fact that he was also a 16th century nut job who was obviously clueless about true nature of the Divine and God's love. But i can see why he was not a friend to reason. :biggrin:

buckeyegrad;1432113; said:
But prefer even more Pascal's more poetic statement:
"The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing."

That is beautiful, and it so true regarding relationships, including relationships with God. But the feeling of relationship is the least compelling reason to believe in the doctrine of any religious flavor, IMHO.

Every religion has adherents who believe with equal fervency the truth of their own doctrine, which is the reason that "Belief" in my mind is of very little value when deciding which faiths or doctrines to follow. Too much of that feeling and opinion is in actuality an amalgam of happy memories of church, Sunday school, beloved family and friends (some no longer here) and of happier times for anyone to reasonably be expected to separate it all into a single concept of reason - even of the heart's reason - because the heart is not made to allow ideas to be fairly weighed in a neutral setting.

See why moms never thing their babies did the crime, regardless of education or economic status.:tongue2:

But there is nothing, and I mean nothing to support the statement that cold hard calculating reason has an greater value than, or is a preferred indicia of man's relationship with God than faith, feelings and emotion. At least, that is true until we try to use our personal relationship with God or the Ultimate Being to prove the age of the earth, how man was created or the dietary rules for society to live by.
 
Upvote 0
Gator,

I simply like the Luther quote, I'm not saying I like Luther or agree with his theology--in fact, I find it strange that you are not the first person to bring up Luther's writings on the Jews in response to me simply posting a quote of his that is completely irrelevant to his views on the Jews. What is up with that? Why do I always get a lecture on Luther just because I agree with the sentiment of one single quote? And I know this will sound arrogant, but oh well, I really find this ironic as I never hear anything new when I get these responses as I am more likely to know more about Luther than most people as I've read several biographies on the man, read his major theological writings, and have taken two classes on the Protestant Reformation, one as an undergrad at Ohio State and one as a graduate seminar at Oxford.

As a Messianic Jew who thinks most modern Christians do not understand what Grace and Law actually means as taught by the writers of the New Testament and who thinks Luther, along with Augustine, are the major theologians who have caused the misunderstanding, you will not find a defender of the man in me.

Back to Luther quote about reason being a whore, I do agree with that 100%. Reason will serve any master and is subjective to the definitions and perspectives one brings the table. It is only a tool to be used by all faiths and philosophies, it does not inherently support one ethos over another. Every paradigm has its own internal logical and therefore reason is loyal to no one and can be used by all, like a whore. (As a lawyer, I would think you would understand this better than most!--note sarcasm)

P.S. I must admit that I find it highly ironic that you trash Luther to the point of questioning his faith and standing as a Christian (which even I don't do) despite the fact that he was the intellectual force that began the revolution in Christianity for you to make such challenges and to interpret the Scriptures by whatever merits and standards you personally find agreeable to your reason and emotion. Yes, I believe Luther never meant his challenge to Catholic authority to result in such a state of affairs as we find in Protestantism today, but regardless, our ability to say "I think you are wrong" on matters of Scriptural exegesis without persecution is the direct result of his conviction (I think you called it being a "nut job") to take a stand.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;1432244; said:
Gator,

I simply like the Luther quote, I'm not saying I like Luther or agree with his theology--in fact, I find it strange that you are not the first person to bring up Luther's writings on the Jews in response to me simply posting a quote of his that is completely irrelevant to his views on the Jews. What is up with that? Why do I always get a lecture on Luther just because I agree with the sentiment of one single quote? And I know this will sound arrogant, but oh well, I really find this ironic as I never hear anything new when I get these responses as I am more likely to know more about Luther than most people as I've read several biographies on the man, read his major theological writings, and have taken two classes on the Protestant Reformation, one as an undergrad at Ohio State and one as a graduate seminar at Oxford.

My post, and my thoughts on subjects that you raised, were directed to the board, and not meant to be a reply to you personally. But as I did not make that at all clear, I could see how you thought I was somehow trying to "challenge" you. I wasn't.

If you interpret it as me lecturing you, then be sure that such was not my intent. Clearly I was posting a long quote...parts of it actually. It is just possible that there is someone who will read this thread that is unfamiliar with Luther's more horrific anti-Semitic ravings. His teaching can be said with some certainly to be responsible for pogroms and increased Jewish deaths over the centuries. Many people only know about his 95 theses allegedly nailed to the door at Wittenberg, or about Lutherans on Prairie Home Companion. :tongue2:

Again, I'll gladly sign an affidavit that you are big smart and well educated. It is clear from any thread in which you participate. I was not trying to "educate" you personally, or infer that you had no idea about Luther's anti-semitism.

And as the larger subject of the post addressed "reason", and how reason is an insufficient method to evaluate God...and presumably things relating to God, I thought it at least on topic to show how Luther's views on Jews were - to say the least - not based upon reason. I mean, the Holy family and the Apostles were Jews, God's Chosen People, and Luther says they should be treated like Third Reich policy dictated. Luther's dislike of Aristotle and logic would have served him better than trusting in his use of prayer and Faith, because they obviously failed him when logic might have led him back to God's Love as a theory.

buckeyegrad;1432244; said:
As a Messianic Jew who thinks most modern Christians do not understand what Grace and Law actually means as taught by the writers of the New Testament and who thinks Luther, along with Augustine, are the major theologians who have caused the misunderstanding, you will not find a defender of the man in me.

Possibly the very last thing in my mind would be to infer that you in any way held those ancillary views of Luther. As to his teachings on Grace, to me he seems to have loved doctrine more than anything, and that he substituted a catechism-like recitation of redemptive theology for a call to Christians to act like Christians. By attempting to end the concept of salvation by works and replacing it with his redemption theology, he not only severed the obviously false doctrine of indulgences, his teachings led to the astonishing belief by some that a lifetime of hate and horrific acts can be banished in a ten second death bed conversion. I am admittedly leery of this concept being extended to the "saddle to the ground" salvation adherents, but that is a different discussion.

buckeyegrad;1432244; said:
Back to Luther quote about reason being a whore, I do agree with that 100%. Reason will serve any master and is subjective to the definitions and perspectives one brings the table. It is only a tool to be used by all faiths and philosophies, it does not inherently support one ethos over another. Every paradigm has its own internal logical and therefore reason is loyal to no one and can be used by all, like a whore. (As a lawyer, I would think you would understand this better than most!--note sarcasm)

I find that theology has been a much greater historic force for malleable conduct than reason. I note the lawyer reference. Why do you hate Aristotle so? :biggrin:

buckeye grad;1432244; said:
P.S. I must admit that I find it highly ironic that you trash Luther to the point of questioning his faith and standing as a Christian (which even I don't do) despite the fact that he was the intellectual force that began the revolution in Christianity for you to make such challenges and to interpret the Scriptures by whatever merits and standards you personally find agreeable to your reason and emotion. Yes, I believe Luther never meant his challenge to Catholic authority to result in such a state of affairs as we find in Protestantism today, but regardless, our ability to say "I think you are wrong" on matters of Scriptural exegesis without persecution is the direct result of his conviction (I think you called it being a "nut job") to take a stand.

Well, we will leave it to another day to discuss that. Suffice it to say that if he died thinking the thoughts that he expressed in writing, then I have grave doubts of his Salvation....unless God gives us a pass on historical cultural perspectives. (I mean, if hatred and intolerance can still get you in the clubhouse, then why do you need to join and why would you want to?)

He was the driving intellectual force behind the Reformation. I think that the Lollards in England don't get their just due in keeping the Reformation pot simmering, but again that is another day. The "nut job" comment only had to do with the anti-Jewish quotes, and how he reconciled his beliefs when it would logically follow that that all of Joseph and Mary's relatives were perfidious scummy Jews...

Not my best or clearest post Grad, and certainly the nut job comment way too flip a comment for such an important personage from a Protestant standpoint, but I was rushing to finish the post and I was getting sidetracked by being more and more pissed as I read the quotes.

juice.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Fair enough Gator, sorry for the overreaction on my part. That had more to do with this not being the first time I have had the Luther hated Jews comment stated as a response to my agreement with his "Reason is a Whore" quote than anything you really said.

Oh, and I agree with your Lollards comment about them not getting their due. Wycliffe certainly was a major influence on Huss, whose writings influenced Luther.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;1432661; said:
Fair enough Gator, sorry for the overreaction on my part. That had more to do with this not being the first time I have had the Luther hated Jews comment stated as a response to my agreement with his "Reason is a Whore" quote than anything you really said.

Oh, and I agree with your Lollards comment about them not getting their due. Wycliffe certainly was a major influence on Huss, whose writings influenced Luther.
I'm soooo sick of people telling me about Wycliffe's influence on Luther via Huss :pissed:





:p
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;1432831; said:
What? Just because he had issues with Christians adopting Jewish practices? Why would that [censored] you off? ::biggrin:

Actually, it's because I've read that his feet smelled like kimchi. :biggrin:

Interestingly enough, in what little I look back at ECFs, I have a hard time finding any of them that weren't dungholes. But I also admit I'm rather biased. :wink:
 
Upvote 0
muffler dragon;1432845; said:
Actually, it's because I've read that his feet smelled like kimchi. :biggrin:

Interestingly enough, in what little I look back at ECFs, I have a hard time finding any of them that weren't dungholes. But I also admit I'm rather biased. :wink:
Funny that you mention him, because I admired the way that he insisted on walking the walk - vis-a-vie the poor and downtrodden. He was all about priests being priests, and in not having ostentatious surroundings and wealth spent on matters other than the poor and needy.

The Jewish religious leaders must have been stealing his flock pretty fierce, since he went off about it. Then again, there was that weird amalgam of the two for centuries, and it was about that time that the Church said it was time to fish or cut bait.
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;1432849; said:
Funny that you mention him, because I admired the way that he insisted on walking the walk - vis-a-vie the poor and downtrodden. He was all about priests being priests, and in not having ostentatious surroundings and wealth spent on matters other than the poor and needy.

The Jewish religious leaders must have been stealing his flock pretty fierce, since he went off about it. Then again, there was that weird amalgam of the two for centuries, and it was about that time that the Church said it was time to fish or cut bait.

Admittedly, I've never read any more than a "soundbyte" of his words. All I see is the venom and not the context.

Re: stealing the flock. Chrysotom wasn't Jewish nor near Jewish establishments was he?
 
Upvote 0
muffler dragon;1432961; said:
Admittedly, I've never read any more than a "soundbyte" of his words. All I see is the venom and not the context.

Re: stealing the flock. Chrysotom wasn't Jewish nor near Jewish establishments was he?

Dunno. I think he and his family were pagans, and that he was a student and master of Greek rhetoric before his conversion. And I think he bounced around a bit after becoming a big shot - was fired from his post for some reason. I only remember that from the articles about the Pope giving back his skull to the Eastern Orthodox Honchos a few years ago.

That caught my eye at the time. I mean, the subject of relics stolen by crusaders, including the bones of a Saint, the Pope coming to lunch with the Byzantines to make nice with a skull in his briefcase. Good stuff.:tongue2:

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/2004/documents/ns_lit_doc_20041127_index_en.html
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Back
Top