A little more on the junkie with liver trouble
From: winters_diana
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 6:21 pm
Subject: A little more on the junkie with liver trouble
My understanding of the Judeo-Christian God
(my Sunday school memories) has him a good bit more compassionate
than Tarjei's portrayal, wherein he favors a "healthy body
with a pure heart and soul." I'm starting to agree that
Tarjei's view of God is racist; he also seems to be a eugenicist.
God incarnated in a human body, I was taught,
in order to suffer our sufferings and thereby in some measure
relieve them. To share humanity's burden, first and foremost
our physical burdens. God, I was told in Sunday school,
favored the downtrodden, the weak, the sick, the dirty, the lame,
those with broken bodies and minds as well as broken spirits.
To be poor would not be enough. To be really fucked up would
be best yet. The wretchedest with the most loathsome diseases
of body or soul is the person who is most in need of redemption
and the understanding and empathy of God, who most needs God
to share his or her experience. That broken body that you cannot
bear the thought of is the one God would choose. There is no
point at all to him choosing a healthy and pure body. God was
to take on our sufferings as well as our sins. It would
seem the movie The Passion stresses this via his suffering of
physical violence against him; that is just one way to represent
his willingness to share all the sufferings to which the flesh
is prone. Drug addiction would be another excellent metaphor
for this.
There is, in short, an excellent case for
God as a foul-mouthed junkie who mugs your mother.
The God who favors the strong and healthy
is not the God I was taught is central to Christianity. The meek
shall inherit the earth.
Tarjei
asked:
If you're going to heal the sick through
inner forces, wouldn't it be more effective if you were born
healthy and pure?
Rank materialism. What do you think "inner
force" is – liver function?
Isn't that what they do at NASA and in
the Pentagon? Sorting out bodies by 'suitability' for 'missions'?
Now we have military metaphors. Your God is
like the guys running the Pentagon?
Yes, I would certainly be afraid of your God,
Tarjei, if I couldn't see that you are merely broadcasting your
own views here, and not God's.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 9:31 pm
Subject: Re: A little more on the junkie with liver trouble
Diana:
My understanding of the Judeo-Christian
God (my Sunday school memories) has him a good bit more compassionate
than Tarjei's portrayal, wherein he favors a "healthy body
with a pure heart and soul." I'm starting to agree that
Tarjei's view of God is racist; he also seems to be a eugenicist.
Hey Diana, I think the point as I understand
it is that the 'Messiah' would have a pure heart and a body that
could hold the Christ was of the utmost importance. As the Jews
claim to have the lineage that will produce the Christ/Messiah
it would only make sense that they see this in a similar manner
as what Tarjei is speaking on in as far as I read. It wasn't
a reference to everyday people not being good enough for God.
It was about a specific soul preparing itself to recieve the
Christ and that would include the point that his body would have
to be able to withstand the entrance of the Christ in the Jordan.
Diana:
That broken body that you cannot bear the
thought of is the one God would choose.
Not for the one Messiah. Again it seems you
have misread or at the very least misunderstood what Tarjei was
referring to. Maybe you should have a looksee to note what he
was talking about. I am sure you will see it was about the Messiah.
Diana:
There is no point at all to him choosing
a healthy and pure body.
You think there was or will not be a specific
being that will be graced endowed to bring unconditional love
to mankind? Do you not believe that if there was a Christ/Messiah
He/She would be a very special human being? Do you not think
it would require a human being of great wisdom and love to lead
a whole people to their own rememption as a people as a planet?
Even if you do not believe do you not think it logical that it
would take a very special being who would be chosen or could
ellevate him/herself to the highest level ever attained by a
human being? Isn't that a logical conclusion to such a one even
if you consider it just a story or whathave you?
Diana:
The God who favors the strong and healthy
is not the God I was taught is central to Christianity. The meek
shall inherit the earth.
Again you completely missed the point. This
was about the 'saviour' not those being saved.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei
Straume
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 2:29 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] A little more on the junkie
with liver trouble
At 03:21 25.03.2004, Diana wrote:
My understanding of the Judeo-Christian
God (my Sunday school memories) has him a good bit more compassionate
than Tarjei's portrayal, wherein he favors a "healthy body
with a pure heart and soul."
In other words, a healthy soul in a healthy
body makes a person less compassionate than a sick and weak one?
Can you please explain this rationale of yours, Diana?
I'm starting to agree that Tarjei's view
of God is racist; he also seems to be a eugenicist.
With whom do you "agree that Tarjei's
view of God is racist" ? And wouldn't the very creation
of species and races be a eugenic activity, unless those species
and races simply popped out of a happenstance chemical soup at
random?
God incarnated in a human body, I was taught,
in order to suffer our sufferings and thereby in some measure
relieve them. To share humanity's burden, first and foremost
our physical burdens. God, I was told in Sunday school,
favored the downtrodden, the weak, the sick, the dirty, the lame,
those with broken bodies and minds as well as broken spirits.
And now you are suggesting that if Christ
were born healthy and whole, He would be incompassionate? Please
explain this rationale.
To be poor would not be enough. To be really
fucked up would be best yet. The wretchedest with the most loathsome
diseases of body or soul is the person who is most in
need of redemption and the understanding and empathy of God,
who most needs God to share his or her experience. That broken
body that you cannot bear the thought of is the one God would
choose.
The fact remains that Christ was born into
an excellent and healthy body, and this was why he was strong
enough to heal diseases and even give sight to the blind. One
woman with a disease she had for many years only touched His
garment and was cured. Do you believe for a moment that Christ's
healing mission would have been equally effective if he had been
sick and weak and "really fucked up" - ?
There is no point at all to him choosing
a healthy and pure body.
In that case, He might as well have chosen
the body of a brain-damaged, leprous, sick baby who died two
months old and never made it to Golgotha.
Incidentally, do you think the Essenes were
racists? Besides, you have not answered my questions about what
is more racist, assimilation or anti-assimilation, segregation
of integration?
There is, in short, an excellent case for
God as a foul-mouthed junkie who mugs your mother.
And you would expect a foulmothed junkie to
be able to save the world and be a role model for the rest of
humanity?
The God who favors the strong and healthy
is not the God I was taught is central to Christianity. The meek
shall inherit the earth.
Do you see your own distortions and falsifications,
Diana, or are you blind to them? Who has been talking about a
God who favors the strong and healthy at the expense of
the sick and weak in the first place? And here is a follow-up
question: Did Christ wish to make the sick and weak strong and
healthy, or didn't he?
Now we have military metaphors. Your God
is like the guys running the Pentagon?
Your description of missions does not resemble
anything anthroposophical, but it resembles Star Trek, NASA and
Pentagon.
Yes, I would certainly be afraid of your
God, Tarjei, if I couldn't see that you are merely broadcasting
your own views here, and not God's.
I see. That Lutheran fear of God again. So
you are really afraid of God then?
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
Continued:
God
the junkie (more for Tarjei)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
March/April
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
