Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

CHRISTIANITY: A HISTORY

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    ckristo2 wrote: »
    Hi Wolfsbane,
    I can see we're never going to see eye to eye on this one. I still find a little confusion surrounding the event which probably really happened in Galatians. It is clear that Paul was indeed angry with Peter but it is not clear why. If Paul was happy to see Peter eating with the Gentiles he probably would have said so. Next when Peter stopped eating with the Gentiles on the arrival of James or some of his companions wouldn't Paul's reaction have been to say to Peter "Have courage do not be afraid of James, live the courage of your convictions and go back to the Gentiles I'll support you." Instead he nearly takes the head off him. My interpretation was because it was because Peter broke a promise he made (With James and the other Jerusalem Church leaders) to more or less stay away from the Gentiles but I may be wrong, it's just what I draw from it. We will probably never know the real relationship between Paul and Peter but these guys were hard men, they had to be and that's was why I originally compared them to the Sopranos. They certainly knew how to stand up for themselves. Anyway It's probably time to close this debate and say adieu. All the best. John
    OK, John, all the best. Let me just leave you with this: Peter's sin was public, so it was not appropriate for Paul to rebuke him in private. It was so serious a matter that an immediate public response was required. This was Paul's teaching for the whole church:
    1 Timothy 5:19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. 20 Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.


  • Options
    #123
    ckristo2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 101 ✭✭ckristo2


    Hi there,
    I just read Darjeeling's response to the Programme on Cherie Blair claiming that Christianity must be in tune with what people think and agitate for social justice...Cherie Blair/social justice...The wife of the man who launched neo colonialism and was reponsible for the deaths of probably close on a million Iraqis....Social justice......well it just goes to show you being Religious is no vaccine against being a total and utter C#*%.
    All the best. John


  • Options
    #124
    darjeeling
    Registered Users Posts: 962 ✭✭✭darjeeling


    ckristo2 wrote: »
    Hi there,
    I just read Darjeeling's response to the Programme on Cherie Blair claiming that Christianity must be in tune with what people think and agitate for social justice...Cherie Blair/social justice...The wife of the man who launched neo colonialism and was reponsible for the deaths of probably close on a million Iraqis....Social justice......well it just goes to show you being Religious is no vaccine against being a total and utter C#*%.
    All the best. John

    It was more a summary than a response. I thought most of the comments in this thread missed the point the programme was trying to make, and saw it in terms of Christianity either being left behind by or trying to copy consumerism. I thought this missed out on the attention given to the role the anti-Vietnam war protests and civil and women's rights movements played in changing society, and the way the churches have adjusted to these changes.

    Cherie Blair probably does know a thing or two about politicking, so no surprise that she can come up with an appealing and saleable (my nod to the critics of consumerism) vision of religion that glosses over some of the less attractive parts. She may believe in this vision herself, and she may even believe that her husband was promoting a similar agenda whilst in power. Other people will think that she and he are deeply hypocritical. However, that's a separate matter from the argument she was making, and I'd still be interested in what people thought of that argument.
    .


  • Options
    #125
    hivizman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,163 ✭✭✭hivizman


    ckristo2 wrote: »
    I just read Darjeeling's response to the Programme on Cherie Blair claiming that Christianity must be in tune with what people think and agitate for social justice...Cherie Blair/social justice...The wife of the man who launched neo colonialism and was reponsible for the deaths of probably close on a million Iraqis....Social justice......well it just goes to show you being Religious is no vaccine against being a total and utter C#*%.
    All the best. John

    So wives are to be held responsible for the offences of their husbands?

    Cherie Blair was an active member of the Labour Party when Tony Blair was playing his guitar in a rock band. She was a leading human rights lawyer. I wasn't convinced by her strategy for bringing Christianity back into a central role in society, but I'm glad that Darjeeling has stressed the other aspects of the programme. I would certainly not want to label her as a hypocrite when she emphasised the potential of Christianity as a positive force in the struggle for social justice (and don't forget, she managed to bring Tony over to Rome - not sure whether this is a good thing or not :)).


  • Options
    #126
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    hivizman wrote: »
    So wives are to be held responsible for the offences of their husbands?

    Cherie Blair was an active member of the Labour Party when Tony Blair was playing his guitar in a rock band. She was a leading human rights lawyer. I wasn't convinced by her strategy for bringing Christianity back into a central role in society, but I'm glad that Darjeeling has stressed the other aspects of the programme. I would certainly not want to label her as a hypocrite when she emphasised the potential of Christianity as a positive force in the struggle for social justice (and don't forget, she managed to bring Tony over to Rome - not sure whether this is a good thing or not :)).

    Poor Tony. His place as popular leader was assured in history until...

    Still, even if there is a greater woman behind each great man, I don't think Cherie can be blamed for her husband's most regrettable legacy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Still, even if there is a greater woman behind each great man, I don't think Cherie can be blamed for her husband's most regrettable legacy.

    Behind every successful man is a surprised woman!


  • Options
    #128
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    hivizman wrote: »
    (and don't forget, she managed to bring Tony over to Rome - not sure whether this is a good thing or not :)).

    There was little point, seeing as he'll probably go to the grave thinking he has nothing of great import to confess.


  • Options
    #129
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Nodin wrote: »
    There was little point, seeing as he'll probably go to the grave thinking he has nothing of great import to confess.

    It depends on what you make of the morality of war. If Tony and Bush held to the Augustinian view of Just War, a war to liberate many under oppression they could see the Iraq War as something that is justifiable, and that casualties are lost in every war. Bear in mind I'm not saying that this is my stance, but it could well be theirs.


  • Options
    #130
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It depends on what you make of the morality of war. If Tony and Bush held to the Augustinian view of Just War, a war to liberate many under oppression they could see the Iraq War as something that is justifiable, and that casualties are lost in every war. Bear in mind I'm not saying that this is my stance, but it could well be theirs.
    I'm a Just War person myself, so I agree it is possible to believe the Iraq War was just. But to do that one would have to believe in the WMD case. None of the other factors - overthrowing a dictator, etc, weigh anywhere near the harm done.

    So the issue becomes, What did Tony think about the WMD case before he joined in the war?


  • Options
    #131
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It depends on what you make of the morality of war. If Tony and Bush held to the Augustinian view of Just War, a war to liberate many under oppression they could see the Iraq War as something that is justifiable, and that casualties are lost in every war. Bear in mind I'm not saying that this is my stance, but it could well be theirs.

    O I presume that theres some such double-think at work - 'This man is evil so I am just in working to falsify evidence of his evil to remove him'.

    (I'm not a pacifist myself btw, but I don't support violence for the conquest of territory, control of resources or the subversion of others to those ends)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    I'm a Just War person myself, so I agree it is possible to believe the Iraq War was just. But to do that one would have to believe in the WMD case. None of the other factors - overthrowing a dictator, etc, weigh anywhere near the harm done.

    So the issue becomes, What did Tony think about the WMD case before he joined in the war?

    Well, it is possible - though unlikely - that he was duped about the whole WMD thing. Colin Powell suggests that he had the wool pulled over his eyes when he stood up in front of the UN council and showed them some grainy pictures of 'mobile laboratories' etc.


  • Options
    #133
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Well, it is possible - though unlikely - that he was duped about the whole WMD thing. Colin Powell suggests that he had the wool pulled over his eyes when he stood up in front of the UN council and showed them some grainy pictures of 'mobile laboratories' etc.

    Given that this is what he and his cabinet were privvy to and thinking in private, its highly unlikely.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece

    I've read the Butler report, and the section where they compare the documentation with the 'sexed up' version which was used to get commons support for the war is illuminating, to say the least.

    Likewise.....
    http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/the%20white%20house%20memo/161410


  • Options
    #134
    ckristo2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 101 ✭✭ckristo2


    You are being very kind indeed to suggest that either Tony Blair and Colin Powell had the wool pulled over their eyes wiht regard to the WMD reason in the invasion (and continual occupation ) of Iraq. One does not get to be the Prime minister of Britain nor the Secretary of State by being so stupid. I would look at word like extreme dishonesty to describe them but hey I just remembered they're both politicians and dishonesty is part of their structural protein.


  • Options
    #135
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    ckristo2 wrote: »
    You are being very kind indeed to suggest that either Tony Blair and Colin Powell had the wool pulled over their eyes wiht regard to the WMD reason in the invasion (and continual occupation ) of Iraq. One does not get to be the Prime minister of Britain nor the Secretary of State by being so stupid. I would look at word like extreme dishonesty to describe them but hey I just remembered they're both politicians and dishonesty is part of their structural protein.
    Yeah, I'm just thankful for any shred of decency or conscience in them. I try not to be cynical, and am encouraged by a few individuals who seem to be genuinely concerned for the welfare of the nation and humanity in general.

    But so much fine words, so little fine action. Self-serving corruption seems the norm, and any benefit the masses get is only there if it serves the purposes of the leaders.


Advertisement