CO CO Constantine

17891012

Comments

  • Whatevs.
  • It makes more sense than responding to Steve's posts though, I suppose.
  • Indeed, nor was it my intention to start one.

    You picked a funny way to not start one.
  • I'm a funny bloke. Funny peculiar that is.

    I was simply joffing on the 'mispelled / mispelt' thing. I was 'aving a laff.

    I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition ...

    Oh no, that's one of Steve Langton's lines.
  • Oh shut up man.
  • You do know that there's a whole board of games if you want to be funny. It's called the Circus.
  • It will, alas, require more than a dedicated board for Gamaliel to be funny.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Stop feeding the "insufferable and annoying nerd". Also Steve Langton. :trollface:

  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Lyda wrote: »
    Stop feeding the "insufferable and annoying nerd".

    Wait. [looks around] That's basically all of us.
  • I think I've sussed it. It's not that Steve makes everything about theocracy. It's that anything he can't make about theocracy, he just ignores.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    RooK wrote: »
    Lyda wrote: »
    Stop feeding the "insufferable and annoying nerd".

    Wait. [looks around] That's basically all of us.
    True enough. :wink:

  • Just fuck off Steve. Take the screed from the PCI thread, shove it up your tight arse and fuck off.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    Also, on the Jerusalem embassy move thread: "If all Jews and Palestinians would just become Anabaptists, then the conflict would be over." Because both peoples would be spending their time spouting nonsense on internet bulletin boards?
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Steve, you don't mind "cherry picking" Christianity at all. You just want to be The Picker.
  • It is simply true that so long as Jews remain OT-style 'Judaists' in religion, and Palestinians remain Muslims, it's going to be incredibly difficult to bring about peace. It is also true that if all on both sides became more-or-less Anabaptist Christians, they wouldn't have anything to fight about. I do of course know that that complete solution is unlikely - but it's also true that even as a partial situation such conversions would take people out of the war and refocus their goals towards peace, simply because that tradition of Christianity doesn't do war.

    So that's actually a sensible goal and you shouldn't be sneering at it unless you've got a very seriously better solution.

    Also note that on that thread it wasn't actually me that raised that point; I was mainly busy discussing the also potentially useful notion of taking out the disruptive interference of US and other Christians influenced by the dubious 'Dispensationalist' ideas. Again, not something easy to do, but worth trying for world peace.

    Where on that thread is your better and more practical option?

    Thunderbunk, if you've anything actually useful to say, say it on that Purg thread. I won't be responding to mere bluster here....
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    edited June 2018
    Holy fuck you're annoying. While it is pointlessly true that if they all became the same religion their differences would be greatly reduced, the further magical extrapolation to have it be your particular cult as the arbitrary common religion is irksome. Why not buddhist? Or Jedi? Or nicely progressively modern secular humanist like most civilized humans?

    I'll tell you why. Because you're a fundamentally irksome philosophically myopic dickweed with an overabundance of the standard delusions of rightness.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Preach it, brother!
  • Buddhist or Jedi would possibly work, actually. Though thinking about it, Jedi aren't exactly pacifists are they, or the films would be nowhere near as exciting. Buddhists, yeah - though they too can be violent when Buddhism is used as a state religion; see Sri Lanka, I think....

    Progressive modern secularism? My memory says that a lot of Israelis are secularists - but not necessarily pacifists especially in the Israeli national cause. For that matter, secularists of any kind aren't necessarily pacifists.

    Basically such a religious change would need to be to a pacifist faith; and there aren't many of them around.

    What is sure, I think, is that religious Jewish Israelis and Muslim Palestinians are not easily reconcilable. As I pointed out to Le Roc, I wasn't emphasising the Anabaptist angle on the Purg thread; but when Gamaliel sarcastically raised it I agreed with the point that IF it could be achieved it would be helpful.....

    One thing I do know about the situation is that the predominantly Anabaptist Christian Peacemaker teams do do useful work in observing and mediating in the Middle East and other situations; and are generally respected because their particular form of belief makes them neutrals in the conflicts as few others can be.











  • .. It is also true that if all on both sides became more-or-less Anabaptist Christians, they wouldn't have anything to fight about. ...

    That is SOOOOOOOO fucking stupid I can't even. Either you are completely ignorant of the history and issues underlying the conflict - and I'm talking under-a-rock-for-5000-years ignorant - or you're a delusional chatbot.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    I think Jews and Palestinians should all become Rastafarians. Smoke a big one and it would all be over.

  • .. It is also true that if all on both sides became more-or-less Anabaptist Christians, they wouldn't have anything to fight about. ...

    That is SOOOOOOOO fucking stupid I can't even. Either you are completely ignorant of the history and issues underlying the conflict - and I'm talking under-a-rock-for-5000-years ignorant - or you're a delusional chatbot.

    I'd certainly be delusional if I actually thought such a result was anything like imminent - it is true, if you think about it, of course, but I'm not as optimistic as I'd like to be.

    And no, I haven't been under a rock for 5000 years (ie before Abraham), and I am pretty well aware of the course of the conflict. Including the point I've mainly been dealing with on the Purg thread about the deleterious effects of the Dispensationalist movement. Which at least is something Western Christians can do something about precisely because it's a problem on our side rather than among Israelis or Palestinians.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited June 2018
    Steve, you can simply shut your trap, son.

    I don't care if you disagree with me about Israel/Palestine, I don't care if you disagree about Anabaptists, and I don't much care what you think about my eternal salvation.

    But you will NEVER suggest again that I lack compassion for Palestinians because I disagree with you and because you've been watching something on TV.

    First you don't know what you are talking about. Second, you are wrong.

    But most of all, it's just rude.

    Rude, rude and rude. Judging someone by something you've done from your armchair whilst someone else has dared to challenge you on your wild claims.

    You are an utter moron*.


    *And I mean that in it's Welsh sense. You are, and will only ever be, a root vegetable.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited June 2018
    Buddhist or Jedi would possibly work, actually. Though thinking about it, Jedi aren't exactly pacifists are they, or the films would be nowhere near as exciting. Buddhists, yeah - though they too can be violent when Buddhism is used as a state religion; see Sri Lanka, I think....

    Progressive modern secularism? My memory says that a lot of Israelis are secularists - but not necessarily pacifists especially in the Israeli national cause. For that matter, secularists of any kind aren't necessarily pacifists.

    Basically such a religious change would need to be to a pacifist faith; and there aren't many of them around.

    What is sure, I think, is that religious Jewish Israelis and Muslim Palestinians are not easily reconcilable. As I pointed out to Le Roc, I wasn't emphasising the Anabaptist angle on the Purg thread; but when Gamaliel sarcastically raised it I agreed with the point that IF it could be achieved it would be helpful.....

    One thing I do know about the situation is that the predominantly Anabaptist Christian Peacemaker teams do do useful work in observing and mediating in the Middle East and other situations; and are generally respected because their particular form of belief makes them neutrals in the conflicts as few others can be.










    The Christian Peacemaker Teams are not just Anabaptists.

    They and other similar groups, including the Ecumenical Accompaniers - who are not even always Christians - operate in a very small area of Hebron and spend most of their time walking with kids to school.

    Saying that they represent any kind of solution to tensions in Israel and Palestine is like saying that lollypop ladies could solve speeding accidents on the M4 because they do such a good job next to the junior school on my road.

    But you know, I don't expect you to understand subtlety. Because in your tiny mind

    Anabaptist = good

    Everything else = bad

  • See my recent reply on the Purg thread. But again, please don't exaggerate what I say. The Peacemaker Teams are not just Anabaptist and I didn't claim they were; though I may have unintentionally misled in that the unusual situation in the UK does mean I work with a wider definition of 'Anabaptist' than just those who are formal members of the classic Anabaptist denominations.

    Nor do I suggest they're a total answer; just that because of their position and beliefs they can do things others can't.

    And my belief is nowhere near as simplistic as "Anabaptist = good; Everything else = bad". Anabaptism has its own faults - though they are at least generally a lot less lethal to outsiders than the kind of faults that produced inquisitions and crusades; and I find plenty good in other traditions including RC and Orthodox. Ship discussions tend to lead to over-simplification because we're not supposed to go on at blog-style length. I have tended to go at key points rather than parade everything I know and think.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Nor do I suggest they're a total answer; just that because of their position and beliefs they can do things others can't.

    Their efforts are to peacemaking what a thermometer is to healthcare. Yes, they do good work. No, they are not any kind of solution. Your wrongness is in the blithe assertion you appended at the end.

    "they can do things others can't" is histrionic conjuring at its worst. Anyone overtly neutral and resourced can (and many do) do what CPT does. Their "position" is that they have resources, and what they believe is important only in that it is "not flagrantly biased". That they get more media coverage than other humanitarian NGO's is not proof of their philosophical correctness - anabaptist or otherwise.

    Your obsessive need to spout this sort of faulty logic is cumulatively enraging. Take a deep fucking breath, and try to comprehend that there are indeed many paths, and that many of us are all on essentially the same journey despite some minor differences. Stupidity such as yours helps no one.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited June 2018
    I do love how Steve can simultaneously ignore and dismiss differences from within the actual Anabaptist tradition whilst setting his own measures of the term to include whoever else he likes. Because somehow in the Langton mind they're Anabaptistish.

    That's monumentally stupid.

    I like the CPTs. But it's not a particularly/specifically Anabaptist approach - as shown by other groups doing very similar things - and has limited impact.

    Of course, almost all approaches in Palestine have limited impact, that's part of the problem. The Anglicans in Gaza running a hospital have limited impact. The diplomacy of (some) Roman Catholic monks in the Bethlehem region has limited impact. The Quaker schools in Ramallah have limited impact. These are just three things I thought of off the top of my head.

    I'd be willing to bet that any of these things has had as much impact as the CPT teams. Of course, the difference is that they're not in any sense Anabaptist.

    Weirdly even though their theology is severely messed up*, they've all been able to do things that are positive towards Palestinians. Funny that, isn't it.

    * According to the Langton Doctrine
  • by mr cheesy
    I do love how Steve can simultaneously ignore and dismiss differences from within the actual Anabaptist tradition whilst setting his own measures of the term to include whoever else he likes. Because somehow in the Langton mind they're Anabaptistish.

    Yes there is variety among Anabaptists who belong to the 'traditional' groups. And some of the differences are good and others questionable. And of course I've come to Anabaptism from outside and in the particular circumstances of the UK where Mennonites have deliberately not set themselves up as yet another denomination but have encouraged the 'Anabaptistish' as you put it - people who have a great deal in common with the classic Anabaptists in key areas like pacifism and church/state relations.

    That is how things are, mr cheesy. And it's not odd or outrageous. Stop complaining.

    And of course people whose church traditions I disagree with are nevertheless achieving something in areas like Gaza. Great!!!! I'm not complaining.

    I wasn't on that Purg thread to particularly advocate Anabaptism. I was engaging with this other issue about the way some people interfere in the Middle East on the basis of the dubious ideas of 'Dispensationalism' and their ideas of the place of Israel in prophecy. Which clearly does play a significant role in US thinking and is not helping.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    Yeah and once again I repeat back to you things that you've said, disagree and then you say that's what you meant all along.

    You said some crap about everyone being Anabaptist. I point out other groups doing important things, that you summarily dismissed with your nonsense about Anabaptists.

    Then you say that you whated to include them all along.

    So which is it?

    Actually don't bother answering that. I know - it's because you are a dickhead who redefines words and includes or excludes whoever you like whenever you feel like it is convenient for your argument.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited June 2018
    You know, when SL first started to post, I felt sorry for him. I pictured him scurrying home from work to a South London suburb, dark setting in, eating something quickly then clearing a place to study some book or other in the hope of finding answers. Well, I was wrong about the location as IIRC he lives in a similar suburb in a Midland city but the rest is right. Without the benefit of someone with whom he could discuss what he was reading, he discovered the Absolute Truth in Anabaptism and has not been able to move from there. He's chosen a very individual interpretation of a few Biblical lines, such as "My kingdom is not of this world" and can't understand just how individual his reading is.

    I've lost feelings of sympathy for him as he turns a blind eye to anything but that which he read on those long dark winter evenings. He won't engage in discussion as he refuses to see that there may be an alternative viewpoint. One day, perhaps it will all come crashing in and then where will he be?
  • Gee D wrote: »
    You know, when SL first started to post, I felt sorry for him. I pictured him scurrying home from work to a South London suburb, dark setting in, eating something quickly then clearing a place to study some book or other in the hope of finding answers. Well, I was wrong about the location as IIRC he lives in a similar suburb in a Midland city but the rest is right. Without the benefit of someone with whom he could discuss what he was reading, he discovered the Absolute Truth in Anabaptism and has not been able to move from there. He's chosen a very individual interpretation of a few Biblical lines, such as "My kingdom is not of this world" and can't understand just how individual his reading is.

    I've lost feelings of sympathy for him as he turns a blind eye to anything but that which he read on those long dark winter evenings. He won't engage in discussion as he refuses to see that there may be an alternative viewpoint. One day, perhaps it will all come crashing in and then where will he be?

    1) My location is on the edge of Greater Manchester, where we actually tend to regard ourselves as Northern rather than Midland. Though I was certainly regarded as a Midlander while I was studying in the North East!

    2) As for the rest, I don't know who you're talking about but it ain't me. I do lots of discussion with all kinds of people and even in terms of reading I read lots of stuff decidedly NOT from my (supposedly narrow) tradition.

    I didn't discover "The Absolute Truth" in Anabaptism. I just realised that they had rather clearly got right something which was clearly problematic and occasionally lethal in other versions of Christianity. In other respects I am pretty much a 'mere Christian' in CS Lewis terms, dealing with the 'common ground' that unites rather than the divisive. I have chosen to stress the state/church issues largely because it was a neglected item which by being neglected was causing confusion and difficulty for church and world both.

    Much of my Christian life has been spent in interdenominational or 'parachurch' settings where it's the common ground that matters most. Anything but narrow.

    Try thinking through the implications of Jesus - a Messianic claimant - saying "My Kingdom is not of this world" to a Roman governor whose job is to kill people who try to set up Messianic states in 'this world' terms, and realise that the effect of this on Pilate was that he - of all people - declared this particular Messiah innocent. My reading is kinda 'individual' - but from where I'm standing it looks very much like everybody else has adopted a reading inconsistent with the original situation but, of course, suited to their desire of a 'Christian state'. A reading which of course would go largely unchallenged in a world where the state church enforced its position by burning heretics.

    The issue is not whether my interpretation is 'individual' - the issue is whether it's a correct interpretation of the original situation. Pilate finding Jesus innocent is simply incredible unless Jesus meant that broadly as I interpret it. If he meant any version that could lead to rebellion against Rome, Pilate would have had to find him guilty and the gospel story would have gone very differently.
  • Co-Co Constantine,
    Click-bait for Steven Lang-teen
    He never fails to get things off his chest
    Co-Co Constantine
    Steve Langton knows what we all mean
    Yet always fails to give things a rest ...
  • I do lots of discussion with all kinds of people . . . .
    That must be happening somewhere other than the Ship, then, because you certainly don’t do any discussion here. Discussion involves listening to and considering the thoughts of others. Pontification, which is all we get from you, ain’t discussion.

  • You don't listen, you don't engage. That's why I simply tell you each time you spew out one of your screeds exactly what I think of it and of you.
  • Just your regular, tedious, reminder, that whatever personal information you choose to divulge regarding age, sex, location, whatever, in a public forum, is now, you know, public.

    DT
    HH
  • Nick, I expected discussion on the Ship - what I get instead is beautifully demonstrated by Thunderbunk above.
    QED....
  • This is Hell, Steve Langton.

    If you want discussion go to Purgatory.

    Better still, if you want discussion learn how to discuss.

  • If you want discussion, you need to listen as much as you talk. You need to be prepared to alter your views. You need to be prepared to ditch them entirely.

    Does this resemble you in any way, Steve?

    Because I don't think it does.
  • Nick, I expected discussion on the Ship - what I get instead is beautifully demonstrated by Thunderbunk above.
    QED....
    Right, because you refuse to actually engage and discuss. Any unmet expectations of the Ship in that regard are entirely of your own making. If you truly think that you have shown any willingness to engage and discuss, then I’m afraid you need a reality check, because you’re the only one who can see it.
  • Hell is for roasting. Steve is too fucking wet even to grill well.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    Nick, I expected discussion on the Ship - what I get instead is beautifully demonstrated by Thunderbunk above.
    QED....

    But you don't do discussion. When someone queries and challenges what you've written here, you absolutely always dig in and refuse to show any sources for your "facts". You just repeat them and then get angry when people don't immediately accept them.

    And your "wider reading" isn't wide. Bollocks.

    Other than CS Lewis, you've not read much at all. You are utterly delusional about your own abilities and knowledge.
  • C S Lewis plus a few Anabaptist authors.
  • I don't pretend to be the most widely read dude when it comes to theology. I've yet to see Steve cite any source that either causes me any surprise or causes me to go straight to Amazon or the library.
  • He's probably reasonably well read when it comes to standard evangelical sources and his knowledge of issues like Dispensationalism, Darby and so on, but no more so than bods I've known in evangelical circles and probably not a great deal more widely read than I am on that sort of thing. Not that I'm any expert either.
  • By Gee D
    He's chosen a very individual interpretation of a few Biblical lines, such as "My kingdom is not of this world" and can't understand just how individual his reading is.

    Actually most of 'my' interpretations are fairly regular Anabaptist stuff, even if my particular circumstances meant I didn't have until comparatively recently a great deal of access to original Anabaptist sources and did have to work a lot of it out for myself.

    As it happens the 'kingdom not of this world' thing is one where I was surprised myself to find out that I had apparently come up with something original that wasn't in the usual Anabaptist sources. Ipso facto I have of course given it a lot of thought to be as sure as I can that it's not a mistake. So actually yes
    I am aware that that one is quite an 'individual' reading.

    But for me that is rather not the point. The issue is not whether it is 'individual' or at the other end of that, how many other scholars may have 'voted' for it. The question is, "Is it a good interpretation?" and as best I can work it out, it is good. By which I mean, the realities of that situation require Jesus' words to be so interpreted that Pilate can find him innocent rather than guilty initially, even if in the end he has to give way to political pressures and crucify Jesus anyway, while making that amazing demonstration of 'washing his hands' of the business.

    And everything else we know of Pilate (which I agree isn't much) says he would be the last person to do that for Jesus unless he was truly satisfied that Jesus was not proposing to be the usual military Messiah and that Jesus' disciples were not meant to do the military thing in his name either. It would be so much easier for Pilate to just deal with Jesus in the usual 'Nail up the supposed Messiah' way. It is pretty much miraculous that he doesn't.

    Anyone wanting to show that Jesus'position here is compatible with a 'this world' kind of 'Christian country' has, I submit, got his work cut out....

    But - and this is pretty typical even in Purg - GeeD isn't 'engaging' with any of those actual issues or realities of the situation. He's not providing me with anything to 'discuss', just going on about how it's an 'individual' interpretation as if that alone proved it was a problem. There is nothing there for me to engage with or answer - and yet people complain I'm not 'engaging'.

    Same with another stock answer I've faced over and over, the bland declaration that "there are other interpretations"; without even bothering to tell me anything about the supposed other interpretations, what they are, what supporting evidence or arguments there might be for them, and so on. I would actually like something solid to engage with, and most on the Ship are decidedly not giving me that....


  • But - and this is pretty typical even in Purg - GeeD isn't 'engaging' with any of those actual issues or realities of the situation. He's not providing me with anything to 'discuss', just going on about how it's an 'individual' interpretation as if that alone proved it was a problem. There is nothing there for me to engage with or answer - and yet people complain I'm not 'engaging'.

    Same with another stock answer I've faced over and over, the bland declaration that "there are other interpretations"; without even bothering to tell me anything about the supposed other interpretations, what they are, what supporting evidence or arguments there might be for them, and so on. I would actually like something solid to engage with, and most on the Ship are decidedly not giving me that....
    Bull! Pure and utter bull! People have explained other interpretations ad nauseum. People have explained repeatedly why they think your interpretation of “my kingdom is not of this world” is wrong and unsupported by the text—and have done so much more convincingly than you have defended that position. You completely ignore them every time, to the point that people have given up trying.

    All I can say, Steve, is that if you really believe that you come across on the Ship as willing to engage and discuss, there is a huge discrepancy between how you think you come across and how you actually come across.
  • C S Lewis plus a few Anabaptist authors.

    Ummm! I'm looking at my bookshelves at the moment - well actually just one of them and the other though smaller is even more varied. (We can ignore the shelves of railway and other non-theological books for now!) Yes, CSL is there, and a few books about him. Also some Charles Williams and George MacDonald fantasies. A book about John Owen; Sayers' "Man born to be King" radio plays; Murray's Puritan Hope as recently discussed on the Purg thread. Hodge on the Westminster Confession; Berkhof's Systematic Theology; Calvin's Institutes; A Paternoster Press series on Church History starting with Bruce on Israel and his "Spreading Flame"; Young's Concordance and then three shelves of commentaries of all kinds, mostly evangelical. Several from Banner, several from IVP, but also others. Next shelf down a bit of a mixture including various Bibles (one an RC 'Knox' version) and a lot of IVP's "The message of..." series. Then a shelf more or less entirely of Anabaptist books; and the bottom shelf right now isn't easy to get at because it's blocked by a stored model railway that normally lives on another shelf.

    On the other stack as I say there's more variety. Yeah, I'm probably not surprising Gamma Gamaliel at the moment. But bear in mind this is the stuff I've spent money on and chosen to keep long-term. There have also been quite a few which I've bought, read, and then disposed of; and a lot I've borrowed from various libraries over the years - and given my reading speed, that really is a lot. And those have included a very large number definitely NOT evangelical or Anabaptist.

    And there is a lot of my 'other reading' which is not theology as such but relevant; books about philosophy, art, history, science. And my favoured fiction, Sci-Fi and Fantasy, contains a great deal of relevant moral and philosophical stuff. One early lesson on tolerance which I now see was eventually relevant to me exploring Anabaptism came from John Wyndham.

    My Kindle has a lot of Anabaptist stuff on it - here in the UK it's not necessarily easy to get in print form. But I also use it for quite a bit of non-evangelical stuff which I probably don't entirely agree with.

    And over and above the reading, I watch a lot of telly too, and not soap operas....

    Especially allowing for the 'lots' borrowed from libraries this is way more that GG suggests.....
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I apologise if I got the location's description wrong, both to you and to the people of cities in the Midlands.

    Even if your interpretation was that of all Anabaptists, that's a pretty small group in the context of the history of Christian thought. I'd say it's small enough to be called individual. A couple of points - you assert, you prove. So far, you've done nothing but assert. The other is that you have shown a total failure so far to discuss what you mean by a "Christian country".

    Otherwise, what Nick Tamen says.

  • by Nick Tamen;
    Bull! Pure and utter bull! People have explained other interpretations ad nauseum. People have explained repeatedly why they think your interpretation of “my kingdom is not of this world” is wrong and unsupported by the text—and have done so much more convincingly than you have defended that position.

    Where????
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited June 2018
    by Nick Tamen;
    Bull! Pure and utter bull! People have explained other interpretations ad nauseum. People have explained repeatedly why they think your interpretation of “my kingdom is not of this world” is wrong and unsupported by the text—and have done so much more convincingly than you have defended that position.

    Where????
    In just about every thread where you’ve harped on the subject. You’ll whine that people say there are other interpretations than yours, you’ll say then why won’t anyone say what those other interpretations are, someone will point out where in the thread they’ve been laid out, and you ignore it and then whine that no one will say what the other interpretations are.

    Or you pull your other classic move and say you’ll have to get back to it, which somehow never seems to happen.

  • by Nick Tamen;
    Bull! Pure and utter bull! People have explained other interpretations ad nauseum. People have explained repeatedly why they think your interpretation of “my kingdom is not of this world” is wrong and unsupported by the text—and have done so much more convincingly than you have defended that position.

    Where????

    Don't plan any mountaineering expeditions, will you?
This discussion has been closed.