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

Search this site powered by FreeFind