Whose reality

[_zzyzx]

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/041210c.html

Take a read and see if it describes bs-space and a few others. Or, does it even apply when discussing LDSinc and its 'doctrine'?

[_Nimrod]

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/041210c.html

Take a read and see if it describes bs-space and a few others. Or, does it even apply when discussing LDSinc and its 'doctrine'?

I love this quote:

In a recent essay, Rev. Howard Bess observed that the deviation between Jesus’s teaching of forgiveness and the Christian Church’s emphasis on penance and punishment may have derived from the fact that apostle Paul may never have known of the Sermon on the Mount, because Jesus’s teachings were not written down until years later.

Awesome! Paul didn't even know what in the hell he was preaching.

[_huckelberry]

I respect Paul theology very much. I thnk Paul has a sturdy understanding of of what Jesus taught and follows his example. According to this article I am as a result a conservative political person who rejects social programs. Problem is I am politically liberal who supports social programs,views active responsiblity to solve problems to be something we should share with all people. I am a person who respects science for both its abitly to help solve problems but also for its abilty to help people hear the word of God which is written in the patterns of creation.

I found the article linked to be... Now I have a bit of a problem here. There was no portions of it that I agree with except perhaps realizing that there are people who view Paul in such narrow and artificial ways and reject social programs.

Is this posted to discuss specifics?? Why would one thnk Paul doesn't know Jesus words because Jesus words were written later? Is that supposed to mean the Sermon on the Mount was made up after Paul died by followers of Paul? That would be a likely implication. If that is so it wouild fit my view that Paul and Jesus saw eye to eye.

I am aware that Paul does very very little quoting of Jesus. He doesn't have to. He instead writes about why and how we should live together helping each other. Unlike the opening claims of the article Paul does not concern himself with penance.

[_The Nehor]

I don't think the reverend who wrote this essay has ever seriously read the Gospels.

[_Nimrod]

I don't think the reverend who wrote this essay has ever seriously read the Gospels.

Why is that? Because you disagree with him? or do you have a reasoned analysis that indicates that the reverend has never seriously read the Gospels? What can you point to that suggests that Paul did know about the Sermon on the Mount?

[_huckelberry]

Demonstrate Paul knew the Sermon on the Mount??. That can only mean where does he quote it. But why would one seek to demonstate this? How is it likely that Paul hung around Christian communities for some twenty odd years and never bothered to check out what these Christians thought Jesus said. That it just really really bizarre. Just the sort of idea that is composed of what ifs standing upon imagination alone in order to amaze.

I think the only way it would be even vaguely plausible would be if the words of Jesus were created after Paul. In that arrangement he would have a way to avoid encountering them. Otherwise he would run into the words of Jesus even if he was trying to avoid them. I do not see the slightest reason to think Paul spent years carefully shielding his ears.

[_huckelberry]

I am annoyed by the article for political reasons. It is a vague attempt to further liberal political views by saying that people who disagree are religiously bad and rely upon magic. I think this is very poor political persuasion. Instead it makes more sense to appeal to actual conservative thought. It is should be straightforeward to see that there are conservative people who do not support governement programs because they do not think a particular program is helpful. It does not engage the issue to pretend that everybody conservative is relying upon magic to improve life. It just is not the case.

But politically I am liberal and wish to purge a bit of bad liberal propoganda. It shortens rather than strengthens the cause I support. Instead I would rather say that government programs are an investment in society which helps privite enterprise and the success of us all in the context of private investment work responsiblity and invention.

[_The Nehor]

I don't think the reverend who wrote this essay has ever seriously read the Gospels.

Why is that? Because you disagree with him? or do you have a reasoned analysis that indicates that the reverend has never seriously read the Gospels? What can you point to that suggests that Paul did know about the Sermon on the Mount?

The reverend has seemed to compartmentalize the supernatural to Paul and the simple humanism to Jesus. This is ludicrous if you read the Gospels and believe that Jesus meant what he said. He created our idea of hell, scared the hell out of people with his sheep and goats parable, and shocked his listeners by telling them that they must be willing to hate their families for his sake.

I am then supposed to believe that he was teaching kindness and basic humanism with a bit of the supernatural while Paul overemphasized the spirituality? If anything Paul was the one focused on the mundane in his advice in his letters. Jesus taught morality but made it clear he was God and gave the Jews their Law. He said he was the messiah and would die and live again. Jesus said much more about the spiritual and supernatural then Paul ever did.

This is why I suspect the reverend has never seriously read the Bible or perhaps focuses on the parts of the New Testament he likes (Sermon on the Mount I assume) and defocuses the rest (I assume the blatant supernatural nature of what Jesus said and his real interest in another world beyond our own). I'm guessing here obviously but I suspect he (like many other religious leaders I know) focuses on his pet scriptures and ignores the rest. The most egregious example I know of is some Born-Again's who fixate on John 3:3 alone and nothing else.

[_Nimrod]

I don't think the reverend who wrote this essay has ever seriously read the Gospels.

Why is that? Because you disagree with him? or do you have a reasoned analysis that indicates that the reverend has never seriously read the Gospels? What can you point to that suggests that Paul did know about the Sermon on the Mount?

The reverend has seemed to compartmentalize the supernatural to Paul and the simple humanism to Jesus. This is ludicrous if you read the Gospels and believe that Jesus meant what he said. He created our idea of hell, scared the hell out of people with his sheep and goats parable, and shocked his listeners by telling them that they must be willing to hate their families for his sake.

I am then supposed to believe that he was teaching kindness and basic humanism with a bit of the supernatural while Paul overemphasized the spirituality? If anything Paul was the one focused on the mundane in his advice in his letters. Jesus taught morality but made it clear he was God and gave the Jews their Law. He said he was the messiah and would die and live again. Jesus said much more about the spiritual and supernatural then Paul ever did.

This is why I suspect the reverend has never seriously read the Bible or perhaps focuses on the parts of the New Testament he likes (Sermon on the Mount I assume) and defocuses the rest (I assume the blatant supernatural nature of what Jesus said and his real interest in another world beyond our own). I'm guessing here obviously but I suspect he (like many other religious leaders I know) focuses on his pet scriptures and ignores the rest. The most egregious example I know of is some Born-Again's who fixate on John 3:3 alone and nothing else.

Paul died in 67 AD. The Gospels, that If I recall correctly contain the only written accounts of the Sermon on the Mount that are found in the Bible, were likely written in the 65-110 AD time frame, being an oral tradition until then. It seems entirely possible that Paul did not know of the Sermon on the Mount.

[_The Nehor]

Paul died in 67 AD. The Gospels, that If I recall correctly contain the only written accounts of the Sermon on the Mount that are found in the Bible, were likely written in the 65-110 AD time frame, being an oral tradition until then. It seems entirely possible that Paul did not know of the Sermon on the Mount.

It's possible but I don't see it as support for this guy's theory.